Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions —

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first Question, may I tell the House that I understand that the Minister has given notice of appeal in the Laker case and, therefore, that matter is sub judice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Civil Aviation (Bermuda Agreement)

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress has been made in the renegotiation of the Bermuda Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has yet resolved the issues raised by his decision to renegotiate the Bermuda Agreement.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the present position on discussions with the United States authorities on revising the Bermuda Agreement on civil aviation.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress has been made in the renegotiation of the Bermuda Air Services Agreement.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): The first round of negotiations with the United States for a new air services agreement was held in London on 9th and 10th September. A programme of further meetings was agreed, designed to lead up to a new agreement before our notice of termination of the Bermuda Agreement comes into effect on 22nd June 1977.
Our principal reason for serving notice of termination of the Bermuda Agreement is that a substantial revision of the rights covered by that agreement is needed to achieve a more equitable balance of benefits overall.
The most direct means of achieving this is to bring the routes which both sides can operate into better balance. The other principal change we are seeking is to establish an effective means of regulating capacity on an equitable basis between the airlines on both sides.
A second round of talks begins in Washington today.

Mr. Arnold: Why is the Secretary of State's concept of British interests one which appears to militate strongly against increasing competition? What, for example, is the attitude of the Government towards the recent recommendation by the Civil Aeronautics Board that two more airlines, Delta and North West, should be allowed to fly passengers across the Atlantic?

Mr. Dell: What I am doing is not inconsistent with the concept of British interests across the North Atlantic. Under our service agreement, this competition takes place within a framework agreed between Governments on both sides of the Atlantic. I do not see that it is a valuable form of competition to have aircraft crossing the Atlantic half or two-thirds empty with the wasteful consumption of fuel that is involved. That is what we are trying to restrain. The CAB proposals are matters which will be considered within the context of the renegotiation.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that there is already a great deal of international competition and there is, therefore, no need to have internal national competition? Will he also have regard to protecting the consumer in this area?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend knows that single designation is the Government's policy, confirmed by this House in a debate earlier this year. I believe that the consumer will certainly benefit if wasteful fuel consumption is cut down by controls on capacity agreed in advance, as we succeeded in doing in a significant way in the recent agreement concerning


Miami and Chicago, to be effective during the coming winter.

Mr. McCrindle: While endorsing the desirable objective of having a larger proportion of transatlantic traffic coming the way of British Airways, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is convinced that that objective could not have been achieved by the exercise of that aggressive commercialism which we have come to associate with British Airways rather than by upsetting the treaty arrangements in the way proposed? Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely sure that the negotiations will not have any effect on the likelihood of Concorde entering into service to New York?

Mr. Dell: The aggressive commercialism of British Airways is something which I greatly welcome. I welcome, too, their improved performance on the North Atlantic route. I am certain that the only way of improving the situation of British air companies operating on the North Atlantic route and in other parts of the world is by renegotiating the Bermuda Agreement. We must have clear rights regarding capacity determination, fares and other matters which are doubtful in the Bermuda Agreement at the moment. There are a number of respects in which we believe that the Bermuda Agreement is currently being ignored by the United States Government. This, again, makes it right that we should have an agreement very much clearer in form than the current one.
I see no reason why Concorde's entry into New York should be held up by this renegotiation. The existing Bermuda Agreement does not expire until 22nd June next. This is the relevant agreement at the moment, and under that agreement I believe that Concorde should be allowed into New York.

Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as there has to be some legal relationship between the two Governments, many people will welcome the Government's determination in principle to renegotiate something which is 30 years out of date? Will the Secretary of State be a little more forthcoming on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and give a categoric assurance that Her Majesty's Government will

not tolerate the Americans in any way dragging Concorde into these negotiations as a bargaining factor?

Mr. Dell: I am pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's welcome for what we are doing. As for Concorde, one of the worries about the current agreement has been that we have had so much difficulty in respect of that aircraft. It will be my objective to ensure that we have rights to fly Concorde into the United States.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the right hon. Gentleman still convinced that this was the right time to start negotiations, shortly before an American presidential election? Does he not agree that it is clear that no substantive commitment can be made by the United States Government before the outcome of the election in November and that this leaves perilously little time before the embarrassing situation which could arise in June with no Bermuda Agreement and no agreement to put in its place?

Mr. Dell: Yes, I am absolutely sure that this was the right time to start this renegotiation. There are always reasons for putting off unpleasant decisions, even decisions which happen to be very much in the interests of this country. There is always an American election of some sort, but I do not think that that should be a conditioning factor in determining the date on which this renegotiation is commenced. I hope that the Conservative Opposition still welcome the renegotiation and that they see that British interests are clearly involved. I more airlines, Delta and North West, indicated earlier, will be available. A great deal of useful preparatory work is being done.

Imports

Mrs. Wise: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his policy on imports.

Mr. Dell: The Government's policy on imports remains as described by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on 6th April.

Mrs. Wise: I think that in view of that answer from my right hon. Friend I ought to have asked "what is his policy on imports, if any". I submit to him that the situation in which we wring our hands—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House was trying to help me. The hon. Lady must ask a question.

Mrs. Wise: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one should have asked "what is his policy on imports, if any"? Is he aware that we must do more than wring our hands in a situation in which the volume of imports increased in the last quarter by 9½ per cent.? This House is constantly being told that we cannot afford things. Will my right hon. Friend accept that we can no longer afford a totally unplanned attitude to trade?

Mr. Dell: I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the September trade figures and not to those for the last quarter. We control imports in a number of cases where they are causing disruption to particular industries. I must remind my hon. Friend that this country depends on the export of manufactured goods and that we export far more manufactured goods than we import. It would be the height of absurdity to put such exports, upon which a great deal of employment is based, at peril by unreasonable action.

Mr. Higgins: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Prime Minister's response on this subject last week was dangerously ambiguous and that there is fear that the Government will be pushed into protectionism with all the consequences that that would entail by retaliation, with the prospect of going back to a situation like that of the 1930s? Does he accept that the crucial distinction is between fair and unfair competition from imports and that this question was fudged in the TUC-CBI paper on the subject? If that is so, will he accept that there is no case for restricting fair competiiton from imports? It is absolutely essential to take more urgent and faster action than the right hon. Gentleman is doing concerning dumping on the United Kingdom market, particularly in regard to COMECON countries.

Mr. Dell: The Prime Minister's response was not ambiguous. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they are against general import controls. We assess the unfairness of particular competition within the framework of the dumping legislation. When the hon. Gentleman says that we need to take faster

action in respect of dumping, I take it that he is not expecting us to return to the action which was characteristic under his Government. We are taking very much faster and more effective action in that field, but protection against dumping is only part of the action that one needs to take. There are cases, and many examples could be given, in which we have felt it right to take certain restrictive action, but it would be most unwise to take restrictive action in a form which would bring about retaliation against our exports.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Britain's trade deficit is merely a concomitant of her surplus on capital account? As long as the Governent are committed to borrowing enormous sums of money, whatever the rest of the country does, there is bound to be a deficit on trade.

Mr. Dell: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are some difficulties about ensuring the capital inflow. It is important to get our trade balance into better balance.

Mr. John Garrett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that footwear is the hardest hit industry with regard to unfair prices, dumping and subsidised imports? No less than 40 per cent. of the £100 million worth of foreign footwear has been shown to be dumped or subsidised, and the measures taken by my right hon. Friend's Department to provide protection are wholly inadequate to cope with the continuing decline of this industry in the face of such imports.

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are restrictions on the imports of footwear into this country. Anti-dumping action has been taken and further dumping action is being considered. We are also considering the specific problem of sandals and we are doing a great deal to assist the footwear industry at this time. I have been in discussion with the industry more than once, and I shall take whatever action I can within the law to help it.

Mr. Forman: Does the Secretary of State accept that we on this side of the House would regard the introduction of fully-fledged import controls as an action of despair? Nevertheless, there is a strong case in certain industries for much tighter voluntary agreements in respect


of some of the low-cost products being dumped in this country, particularly in the case of electronics and electronic components. Will the Minister give an undertaking to take early action on this point?

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a wide range of voluntary agreements have been negotiated by us or by industries with the particular suppliers. The vast majority of what I would describe as low-cost imports are now subject to controls of one kind or another. We have been in close consultation with the electronics industry over the last few weeks. I hope that there will now be inter-industry discussions on this point. Meanwhile, we have established an agreement in respect of 1976 and also, in the case of Taiwan, we have an agreement covering not only the remainder of 1976 but 1977 as well.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend explain why this Government are not as bold as the previous Labour Government when import deposits were applied up to 50 per cent.? That would reduce the Government's borrowing requirement. Why are the Government acting like King Canute in the face of an overwhelming case that some form of import controls must be brought in at the earliest moment?

Mr. Dell: I would say to my hon. Friend that it might be possible to protect the home market. What is impossible, if we invite retaliation, is to protect our exports. A great deal of employment in this country is dependent on those exports, and the industries concerned are our most efficient and rapidly expanding industries. In regard to import deposits, my hon. Friend will have noticed in respect of the scheme for 1968–70 that the trade effect was very small. If import deposits have any effect at all, it is of a financial character which leads to foreigners helping to finance our balance of payments deficit and it has certain internal monetary effects. That being the case, I suggest that my hon. Friend puts his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Anti-dumping Measures

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress he has

made in preparing for the EEC to become responsible for anti-dumping regulations and enforcement.

Mr. Dell: I have discussed with Sir Christopher Soames the major problems likely to arise. In particular we agreed that the anti-dumping unit of the Department of Trade should remain in being after 30th June 1977 to advise United Kingdom industry and to assist the Commission in handling cases. We are currently considering in detail with the Commission the best means of ensuring a smooth hand-over and close future cooperation. In the meantime the Commission has made a helpful statement in reply to a Question put in the European Parliament by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton). With permission, I will circulate this in the Official Report.

Mr. Renton: Can the Secretary of State advise us whether the Government believe that a more rapid enforcement of anti-dumping procedure, either now or under the control of the EEC, is possible? Can he further advise us, following the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), that the Government are not thinking in terms of import deposits, bearing in mind that this could be only a temporary palliative which would help the extensive public sector borrowing requirement but would do nothing to aid the fundamental imbalance of British trade at the moment?

Mr. Dell: I have already said that as regards the import deficits this is not a trade measure but a financial measure. For obvious reasons the more rapid enforcement of anti-dumping measures could be no more than a temporary palliative. It is certainly possible in many cases to take more rapid action, especially if industry co-operates more rapidly. It must be understood that anti-dumping action is co-operative action and depends to some extent on the co-operation of industry. I could point to cases in which there have been considerable delays in providing information which it has been agreed should be provided. I am strengthening the anti-dumping unit in my Department and I hope that that will have the effect of speeding up yet further our anti-dumping action.

Mr. Jay: Is it not a serious matter that we are proposing to surrender these


crucial powers to the EEC Commission? If we do so, will it be possible for the EEC to approve anti-dumping duties for the United Kingdom alone, or will it have to apply them to the whole of the EEC or not at all?

Mr. Dell: On considering this matter further, I think my right hon. Friend will find that there can be advantages in having the full commercial power of the European Community involved, provided we ensure that it acts as rapidly as we do. It is for that reason that I have been in consultation with it. Detailed discussions are continuing. One of the matters that I discussed with Sir Christopher Soames was whether anti-dumping can apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. My right hon. Friend will find references to that in the answer to the hon. Member for Cheadle. The Commission has special powers to act in respect of a part of the Community and not only all the Community. That point is taken care of.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Are the French handing over their effective anti-dumping machinery to the EEC? If so, when may we expect to take advantage of that in future?

Mr. Dell: Anti-dumping has for some time been operated by the Commission on behalf of the original Six.

Mr. Hoyle: When my right hon. Friend is making proposals to the Commission, will he bear in mind that we should alter the rules and put the onus of proving whether there is dumping on the importer rather than on industries in this country? That would be a means of speeding up the process and getting the information that is required a great deal sooner than at present.

Mr. Dell: That is a proposal that has been made in the course of the current TUC-CBI memorandum. Such an arrangement would be contrary to British law and, consequently, to the international agreement to which we have subscribed. It would be contrary to the position now operated by the European Community. That is also bound by the anti-dumping code. I can only say to my hon. Friend that at the moment what he suggests is not possible.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in the

event of exports being concentrated on the United Kingdom rather than on our partners in the Community, our partners will dismantle the effective non-tariff barriers that they have so that the imports may be dispersed throughout the EEC?

Mr. Dell: The whole object of the European Community is to eliminate non-tariff barriers that may operate within it.

Following are the question and answer:

Subject: Dumped imports
At present the United Kingdom Government continues to deal with cases of dumped imports originating in countries outside the Community under its national legislation.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 133 of the Treaty of Accession, such cases will be dealt with under Community legislation from 1st July 1977.
Will the Commission state what steps have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that the protection available to British industry from dumped imports will not be lessened as a result of the transfer of responsibility in this field in the following types of case:

1. Where anti-dumping duties have been imposed under British law and are still in force on 1st July 1977.
2. Where an investigation is in progress under British law on 1st July 1977.
3. In cases which arise after 1st July 1977.

1. The Commission is of the opinion that there will be no reduction in the protection available to British industry as a result of the transfer of power in the anti-dumping field at the end of the transition period, i.e. 30th June 1977 since the Community's antidumping policy is very similar to the traditional British policy. Both British legislation and Community law, under the transitional provisions of which the United Kingdom has operated since accession, are based on the GATT anti-dumping code. Moreover, the time scale within which complaints are dealt with by the Commission is approximately the same as that which applies in the United Kingdom which itself is relatively short.

2. The following are replies to the specific questions asked by the hon. Member:

1. Anti-dumping duties which have been imposed by the British authorities and are still in force on 30th June 1977 will not expire ipso facto on 1st July 1977 although they may, at an appropriate time, be examined in accordance with Community legislation.
2. As regards cases where an investigation is in progress in the United Kingdom, first contacts have already been held between the Commission and the United Kingdom Government which has indicated that it will endeavour to finalise as many cases as possible before 30th June 1977. There will be continuing close co-operation between the Commission's services and the United Kingdom authorities to ensure that those cases


which are still under investigation at 30th June 1977 can be taken over smoothly by the Commission. The results of the investigations carried out by the British authorities will not, of course, be fruitless but will form the basis of the Commission's investigation and will help considerably to speed up the procedure.
3. In cases arising after 1st July 1977, the normal Community anti-dumping procedures will apply. These provide that the Commission shall examine complaints in coordination with Member States. The co-ordination would, of course, be particularly close with a Member State whose industry was directly affected. The handing over of powers in dumping matters did not cause any problems in the original Member States and it is not expected that in the United Kingdom any insuperable problem will arise.

3. More specifically, the procedure laid down by Article 6 et seq. of the Community antidumping Regulation is as follows.

4. Industries which are suffering injury as a result of dumping have the option of either approaching Member States directly or making their problems known to the Commission in the first place. In either case the industry will be given all possible advice and assistance. The Commission has, indeed, prepared a questionnaire to assist industry in formulating complaints but this does not, of course, in any way, rule out the possibility of discussion with the appropriate authorities, which the Commission welcomes. In the introduction of the complaint the industry is again free to choose between lodging it with the Commission or with the Government of a Member State. If the latter course is chosen, the authorities concerned shall, in accordance with the Regulation, inform the Commission immediately. In either event the result will be an investigation by the Commission in co-operation with the Member States, of both the dumping and the injury to the industry.

5. In this context it should be noted that both the GATT anti-dumping code and the Community Regulation provide for anti-dumping measures to be taken if there is injury to a Community industry which is defined as being either the entire industry or a major proportion thereof. Both expressly recognise, however, that, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary to act in defence of the industry in a region of the Community. Existing Community legislation should, therefore, prove sufficiently flexible to deal with all major problems.

6. Finally it should be stressed that all Commission decisions on dumping cases are taken after consultation with the Member States. For example, an investigation is opened after discussion in the Anti-dumping Committee; the investigation is carried out by the Commission in co-operation with Member States' authorities, whose assistance it may request in such matters as customs checks and verification of injury to firms; an anti-dumping duty may be imposed provisionally by the Commission or definitively by the Council and, in either case, the situation in the Member States

most directly concerned would be taken very much into account; the Commission may only terminate a procedure with the agreement of the Member States.

Civil Aviation Policy Guidance

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he next expects to meet the Chairman of British Airways to discuss "Civil Aviation. Policy Guidance".

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for such a discussion.

Mr. Neubert: Will the hon. Gentleman point out to the Chairman of British Airways at the earliest opportunity that the surplus of £71,000 on package holiday sales of £30 million is a profit on turnover of less than one-quarter of 1 per cent.? Following a year in which inflation reached 26·9 per cent., that represents a substantial loss in real terms. To emulate Clarksons by seeking to achieve expansion by accepting sales at a loss is not likely in the long run to be in the best interests of the British taxpayer or holidaymaker.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman adopts an ambivalent attitude on these matters. I recall that during the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on 4th August he was calling for a restriction upon the commercial aggressiveness, to use the description given by his hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), of British Airways' activities. He was calling for a restriction rather than an enhancement of the commercial aggressiveness of British Airways. I do not accept his conclusions.

Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange to discuss at an early opportunity the problems of aviation relating to crop spraying, about which there is considerable difficulty at present?

Mr. Davis: That is also a matter which the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has under review.

Import Quotas (EFTA Countries)

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of negotiations over duty-free import quotas with the United Kingdom's former EFTA partners.

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of negotiations over duty-free imports with the United Kingdom's former European Free Trade Area partners.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): Discussions on the arrangements for the duty-free quotas have taken place with the main EFTA supplying countries. These have not led to any agreement on changes acceptable to both the EFTA countries and ourselves.

Mr. Ovenden: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern in many areas such as the one I represent, which is dependent upon the paper industry, that there will be a successful outcome to the negotiations? Does he accept that the overgenerous treatment that we have afforded to Scandinavian paper imports in the past has been a major factor in the decline of the British paper industry and the loss of 17,000 jobs? Will my hon. Friend renew his effort to secure an agreement that ties the imports from Scandinavia more closely to demand in the home market? Will he confirm that we shall go back and negotiate again with that objective in mind?

Mr. Meacher: I am well aware of the feeling that exists on this issue in the paper industry. In response to the third part of my hon. Friend's question, the proposal for a downward revision of quotas at times of recession has been our primary objective. However, it is necessary under the exchange of letters that the Conservative Government undertook shortly before we entered the EEC that any changes which are made have to be made with the agreement of both sides. I am not optimistic about whether it is possible to secure agreement on this issue in a way which is satisfactory also to the EFTA countries.

Mr. Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his earlier answer? Did he say that the negotiations have been concluded and that he has failed, or that he is still hopeful of a more successful outcome? Bearing in mind that United Kingdom imports of paper and board now account for nearly half the total consumption compared with about 28 per cent. 10 years ago, and that that has been caused

substantially because we have allowed most imports to come in duty-free under the quota arrangement, the EEC being protected by a 10 per cent. tariff, will the hon. Gentleman take that point on board?

Mr. Meacher: I hope I made it clear that the review has been completed. We are now considering the results and we shall shortly be giving our conclusions to the EFTA countries. No final decision has been taken on our position. I am aware of the difference between the position for the United Kingdom industry and that for the rest of the EEC. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the other side of the coin is that under the exchange of letters we retain the right for our industry to have free trade access to the Scandinavian countries. In the first eight months of this year the value of that market to our industry was £1·1 billion. That is a considerable quid pro quo. However, I am well aware of the need to provide for the paper industry all the protection that is consistent with that objective.

Balance of Payments (European Community Countries)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is now the visible trade deficit with the EEC on a balance of payments basis for the last 12 months.

Mr. Dell: In the 12 months ended June 1976, the latest period for which such information is available, the deficit was £2,237 million.

Mr. Marten: I agree that exports to the Common Market have risen, as they have risen to almost all areas of the world, especially Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, but is it not true that the deficit is greater than our deficit with all the rest of the world? Is that what was meant by the "benefits of a wider home market"?

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman has said, our exports to the European Community have risen, as have our exports to all other parts of the world. It is also true that the deficit is greater than with the rest of the world. A large part of the deficit consists of imports of food and fuel. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that our balance of payments with the European Community has been on an improving trend for some


time. I agree that I should like to see it improved faster, but it is on an improving trend. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that the test of competitiveness is whether we can compete in Europe. If we can compete in Europe, we can compete anywhere in the world.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches forecast that if we joined the Common Market our financial and trade problems would disappear? What went wrong?

Mr. Dell: There are always disagreements during discussions of this sort about exactly what right hon. and hon. Members had forecast. The truth is that in manufactured goods our deficit with the European Community is far smaller than the total figures that are bandied around. The total figures contain for the most part imports of food and fuels. Our exports to the European Community show that we can increasingly compete in manufactured goods, and that is a matter of great importance.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Secretary of State say whether this is what was meant by the phrase used at the time of our entry into the EEC "We have got to get in to get on"?

Mr. Dell: I wait for the hon. and learned Gentleman to welcome the fact that we are getting on with our exports within the European Community. He may find that very satisfactory.

COMECON Countries

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any plans to visit the USSR to discuss the balance of trade between Great Britain and the COMECON countries.

Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to visit the Soviet Union before the meeting of the British-Soviet Joint Commission in Moscow next spring, though I myself visited the Soviet Union a fortnight ago.

Mr. Morrison: Will the Minister explain how the Government can continue to provide favoured trading conditions for the COMECON countries, particularly as long as British industrialists are forced to pay more than 15 per cent.

for new investment? Is he satisfied that those countries are not dumping in this country?

Mr. Meacher: First, in view of the phraseology of the Question, I assure the hon. Gentleman that, whilst the Eastern European countries are not exactly politically independent of the Soviet Union, Ministers do not go to Moscow to discuss trade with the Eastern European countries. The surplus of our trade with the COMECON countries, excluding the Soviet Union, was £100 million in 1975. The trend this year is slightly less but it is still considerable. That is a good reason for continuing to trade with them. We already have a large series of import restraints, whether by quotas or voluntary action. As my right hon. Friend has said, we also have a number of antidumping applications which we are urgently considering.

Mr. Ford: Will my hon. Friend tell me when he might come to a determination on the anti-dumping application lodged by the Clothing Manufacturers Federation in April this year to which a reply is urgently needed? Will he note that my constituency is seriously affected by unfairly subsidised imports of electric motors from the State trading countries, the price of which cannot in any way be related to the cost of production?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend will know that we accepted for full investigation the application by the Clothing Manufacturers Federation with regard to Eastern European suits. We made an announcement last month. I cannot tell my hon. Friend precisely when that investigation will be completed, but I assure him that we are undertaking it with the fullest urgency and I hope that we shall shortly come up with an answer. Any application made by the relevant manufacturers of electric motors will receive the urgent attention which we give to all these matters.

Mr. Jopling: Before the hon. Gentleman embarks on any talks, will he take immediate action to deal with the dumping of footwear from COMECON countries which is causing a great deal of short-time working and factory closures throughout the country? Is he aware, for example, that a successful and well-known footwear firm in my constituency


has discovered that shoes coming from Czechoslovakia, which are a stitch-for-stitch copy of those made by the firm, are retailing at £3·82 a pair, whereas the cost of the materials alone is £4·60? Does not the Minister agree that that is intolerable and that further action must be taken to stop the closure of firms in this country?

Mr. Meacher: The Question is about Eastern Europe, and we already have restraints on men's leather footwear from Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland which were continued in 1976 at the 1975 level, which was 5 to 10 per cent. below the 1974 import level. That restraint was extended last year also to women's and children's leather footwear, and it has been continued this year at last year's level. Sandals were excluded in both cases. We have now accepted for investigation the question of the alleged dumping of sandals, although the number of workers and the number of businesses concerned in the manufacture of sandals in this country is very small. Nevertheless, we have undertaken to do that and we shall also take any further action that is necessary.

Mrs. Renée Short: What help is my hon. Friend's Department giving to firms that wish to export to COMECON countries, particularly the Soviet Union, which has the largest purchasing potential?

Mr. Meacher: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister on his visit to Moscow in February last year agreed on a line of credit of nearly £1 billion to facilitate trade between this country and the Soviet Union in line with the fact that our competitors had hitherto had a much bigger slice of that market and we are determined to get an equal or larger portion of it.

Mr. Higgins: Did the Minister go to Moscow without realising that our trade policy with COMECON countries is becoming more and more lunatic on both exports and imports? On exports, industry in the USSR can obtain finance for capital goods on far better terms than can anyone who is producing them in this country. On imports, I back up what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) said. If goods are being landed in this country by COMECON countries at less than the

price at which our producers can buy the raw materials, is that dumping or is it not?

Mr. Meacher: On the question of the Soviet Union being able to obtain goods on a better rate of credit than is obtainable by domestic producers, we are talking about exports and there is no direct analogy with domestic producers. All we have offered to the Soviet Union is a rate of interest that is, so far as we can judge, competitive with that provided by other Western European countries and the United States. We can do no less if we are to get a share of that market. I shall not discuss the precise terms because that would be against the interests of the firms which I hope will be increasing their trade with the Soviet Union.
On imports, as I made clear, we undertake to ensure that the COMECON countries do not have an unfair advantage in this country inasmuch as under the 1969 Act we have to draw a parallel with the market economy countries. That is not always an easy exercise but it is one which has to be legally defensible in the courts. We try to reach the fairest analogy we can and act on that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting far away from Question Time in arguing and debating.

Motor Vehicles (European Community Countries)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions his Department, alone or in conjunction with the British motor industry manufacturers, has held with the EEC about limiting the volume of exports of motor vehicles from other member countries to the United Kingdom; and what understandings resulted.

Mr. Meacher: None, Sir.

Mr. Miller: Is the Minister aware that such a meeting is due to take place on Friday this week and that the import figure for cars from our European partners has now reached 28 per cent.? What investigations are possible into the dumping of cars by our Common Market partners in this country under the arrangement whereby the EEC is responsible for anti-dumping measures?

Mr. Meacher: As my right hon. Friend has said, the Commission is able to undertake to examine whether one member of the EEC is dumping its, products in the country of another. There are instances where the Commission has acted on that basis. Quota controls raise questions in respect of the EEC, EFTA countries and North America which go far beyond the scope of the Question. The Government are examining the strengthening or consolidation of selective import controls and are also concerned about the possible strengthening in various ways of anti-dumping measures.

Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that agreements have been made with motor car producers outside the EEC? Is it not rather pointless to have an agreement with Japan or any other non-EEC producer if the gap which is created is then filled by Japan and other non-EEC producers?

Mr. Meacher: I appreciate the significance of my hon. Friend's point and of the argument raised about imports of Japanese cars. It raises political and economic issues which go wider than the question of imports of cars. At present the Government are looking at selective import controls and how these can perhaps be strengthened in various ways in line with the current policy to limit the application of selective import controls in respect of Japan, Eastern European and the developing countries.

Motor Vehicles (Japan)

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on motor car imports from Japan during 1976.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what response he has had from the Japanese Government to his request for reductions in the numbers of cars imported from that country.

Mr. Dell: I have made clear to the Japanese authorities our concern about levels of car imports into this country. The Japanese industry told our industry in July that it did not foresee any conspicuous change this year in its share of the British market. I shall continue to keep a close watch on the figures.

Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend has made clear to the Japanese authorities, as his predecessor did a year ago, the Government's and industry's view, and yet Japanese imports are still increasing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a case. Will he please ask a question?

Mr. Rooker: Has my right hon. Friend given a commitment, as the present Secretary of State for the Environment gave to the Japanese almost exactly a year ago? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we should go on chatting to the Japanese, asking them not to import too much into this country and saying that otherwise we will take action when no action has ever been taken?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend is quite wrong in saying that no action has ever been taken. To begin with, exports of Japanese motor cars to this country are governed by an understanding reached with the British industry in July that there would be no conspicuous change in their share of the market. The trouble is that British industry has not been able to take advantage of what has been left in the market because of its own inability to supply, and the market has been taken up by European suppliers. The problem is one of making British industry more competitive so that it can take advantage of the opportunity created by the agreement with the Japanese industry.

Mr. Sims: Is the Minister aware of the Japanese Government's claim that if invisible trade is taken into account the balance of trade is more favourable to the United Kingdom than to them? Will he clarify the position to clear up the misunderstanding and discuss the matter with members of the Japanese delegation which is now in this country?

Mr. Dell: I am aware of the claims made by the Japanese authorities about this country's invisible earnings with Japan. We have examined the figures and find that they grossly exaggerate the position. It is true that our invisible income makes some contribution to cover the deficit in our visible trade, but it does not eliminate it and it probably does not reduce it by more than half.

Mr. Skinner: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the question goes a


little wider than blaming British manufacturers and partcularly British workers in the car factories? Are not the Japanese more shrewd than our people in that they adopt techniques and tests which prevent British cars from passing a hurdle which amounts to a tariff? Could we not act in a similar fashion in this country?

Mr. Dell: It is true that the operation of Japanese tests regarding pollution controls operate as a non-tariff barrier. We have been discussing this with the Japanese authorities and we would like to see a relaxation of foreign imports into Japan to improve the opportunities for foreign car exports to Japan. But the main problem in our relations with the Japanese is that they should import more manufactured goods from this country and from the rest of the world. This is a matter which we are discussing with the Japanese Government, and I took the opportunity this morning to impress that point at a meeting with Japanese industrialists. I think they are taking the point on board, but we shall have to watch the situation.

Mr. Shersby: Is not the best way of tackling Japanese penetration of the market an increase in efficient production in this country, particularly by British Leyland, and the elimination of non-tariff barriers? Does the Minister agree that the ambiguous statement made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about import controls is likely to lead to further speculation against the pound?

Mr. Dell: I do not think that my hon. Friend made an ambiguous statement. The Government's position is clear. Of course we need to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of the British industry, and the Government are giving considerable help to British Leyland and Chrysler to that end. We want to see British industry taking advantage of the situation created by the agreement with Japan.

Company Law (Bullock Report)

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to receive the report of the Bullock Committee on company law and if it is the Government's intention to legislate in the light of its recommendations in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Clinton Davis: My right hon. Friend expects to receive the committee's report by the end of this year, after which it will be the Government's intention to place legislation before Parliament as soon as possible.

Mr. Shersby: Does the Minister accept that there is considerable interest about this report in the business community? Will he undertake to introduce a separate Bill dealing with the company law aspects of the committee's report?

Mr. Davis: There is considerable interest throughout the community on both sides of industry about the matter, but we should await the result of the report before defining the legislative process that we are able to undertake.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend resist any attempts by the EEC Commission to change our company law in a way that would actually lower the safeguards that we have? Does he agree that we have a heavy responsibility in this sector? I hope that he will safeguard it.

Mr. Davis: I hope we shall be able to do that. We are keeping the proposals made by the EEC under close surveillance, and, of course, there is a considerable input of British thinking into the views that it is currently canvassing.

Mr. Lawrence: Will the Government introduce a Green Paper so that this matter can be fully considered by all the parties affected? Does he agree that the Government should not rush into ill-considered and hasty consideration of such matters?

Mr. Davis: There is no question of that. The Bullock Committee is carefully considering the full range of problems. We will have to await the outcome of the committee's considerations before we determine our next course in the legislative process.

Press (Royal Commission's Report)

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for implementing the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Press.

Mr. Dell: The initiative for implementing the report is with the industry. Managements and unions are working


together at top level in the Joint Standing Committee for the National Newspaper Industry. The committee announced on 12th October that it had reached agreed recommendations on a range of matters which are central to the Royal Commission's findings. If the committee's recommendations are adopted by the organisations represented on it, discussions will he carried forward at house as well as industry level.

Mr. Aitken: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that large parts of the report depend upon the Government taking some initiative? In particular, does he realise that since the production of the report, highlighting the industry's acute problems, the problems have worsened dramatically? The report was based on the assumption that sterling would remain at a rate of $2·4 but there has been a deterioration of that position. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that all the figures in the report, which were then serious, are now desperate? When will he come off the fence?

Mr. Dell: There is no question of being, on the fence. The previous Secretary of State for Trade made a statement in the House in March about the interim report. He indicated a timetable for the industry and for house agreements regarding the introduction of new technology. That timetable has not been met. We have only just had the announcement of 12th October regarding the industry's conclusions, and we now have to see how the house negotiations proceed.
If the circumstances of the industry are so desperate, I suggest that it should get on with its house negotiations in the light of the statement of 12th Otcober with a view to introducing the new technology to the work. The whole essence of the interim report was that the new technology could be financed out of the savings made in most cases.

Mr. Rathbone: Would it be right to interpret the right hon. Gentleman's answer as a mean approach by the Government to the very great strides that both managements and unions have made in coming to new manning agreements so that new technology can be introduced? Does it not show too little appreciation of the fact that the future vitality of one

leading independent daily and one leading independent Sunday paper is at stake because of the lack of action by the Government?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government's approach is mean. It is not characteristic of the Opposition to urge the Government to spend public money on industry in general or newspapers in particular. Objection used to be taken to the idea on the ground that it would imperil the independence of newspapers. As soon as it can be arranged—the delay is not on my side—I propose to hold further meetings with the joint chairmen of the joint standing committee, but again I impress on the industry the importance of getting on with house agreements. The industry has lost the time schedule proposed by my predecessor in March. Let those house agreements now be made rapidly.

Mr. Skinner: Whatever my right hon. Friend does, may I ask him not to take advice from those young blades who advised Slater Walker in the run-up period to the wonderful success story which has ended in disaster?

Mr. Dell: I am always careful about any advice I am offered. Indeed, I sometimes do not take advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he intends to take to reduce aircraft noise around Heathrow in 1977.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Throughout 1977, as in previous years, we shall continue our policy of taking all practicable steps to reduce noise disturbance in the vicinity of Heathrow through the continued application of the various noise abatement measures already applied there. As the hon. Member knows, we keep these measures under constant review and will take advantage of any opportunity of improving on them.

Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his decision not to allow British Airways any increase in the number of night flights will be warmly welcomed in my constituency? What progress has been made with the introduction of quieter aircraft engines, and, in


particular, what improvements can be expected from the current figure of 18 per cent. for noise certificated aircraft for 1977 and thereafter?

Mr. Davis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observation about night flights. The restrictions are not limited to British Airways. On our present estimates, the current proportion of noise certificated air transport movements for quieter aircraft represents about 18 per cent. at Heathrow, and this will rise to about 30 per cent. by about 1980 and 55 per cent. by 1985. We estimate that by 1990 virtually all traffic movements will be by noise certificated aircraft. Considerable progress is being made. This is evidenced by the purchase of substantial numbers of the larger, quieter-engined aircraft.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disquiet in the constituencies around Heathrow not only at the current extensions of Heathrow but at the fact that even further extensions are being contemplated? Is he further aware that Heathrow is peculiarly unfortunately situated in that, for two-thirds of the time, all aircraft arriving fly over heavily populated areas? In view of the safety factor, quite apart from anything else, if there are to be any further extensions of London airports, they should be made at airports other than Heathrow.

Mr. Davis: I hope that my hon. Friend who represents a constituency close to Heathrow, will engage in the process of consultation about the future rôle not only of Heathrow but of other airports in the country which is already being undertaken.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What stage has this process of consultation, which the hon. Gentleman initiated this summer, now reached? When is the next stage, which I believe is consultation with hon. Members concerned, likely to take place?

Mr. Davis: We have already had a number of meetings between my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and myself and various bodies, and we hope that these will be continued. I hope that we shall have an intensified process of consultation in the next few weeks and months. We

hope that hon. Members will communicate with the Department either as groups representing different areas of the country or as individuals to engage in the process of consultation, but so far as I am aware no such approach has yet been made.

Mr. Molloy: is my hon. Friend aware that those of us with constituencies near Heathrow, which on occasions suffer abominably from the noise of aircraft, are appreciative of the efforts he has made over the past 12 months in trying to reduce the noise? Will he now concentrate on the fact that during the inclement weather there is a change of route, when aircraft fly very low indeed, particularly over the London borough of Ealing? Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's efforts, I have received very many complaints, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has received complaints. I feel like making some myself. Will he now come to the point?

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is disturbing particularly to shift workers and to police officers, for example, who are on various duties? My list of complaints is rising, and I ask my hon. Friend to take these factors into account.

Mr. Davis: I appreciate my hon. Friend's compliment, as, indeed, I appreciate compliments from anyone. The Civil Aviation Authority has been asked to look into the factors involved in reducing the proportion of easterly landings and take-offs, and if a change should prove practicable there will be full consultation with the representatives of all those living around the airport.

Holiday Tour Operators

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will resume from the CAA powers over the scrutiny of holiday tour operators who are not members of ABTA, following the bankruptcy of Pearl Islands Tours Ltd.

Mr. Clinton Davis: My Department has never exercised such powers, and I consider it more appropriate that the Civil Aviation Authoriy should continue its present functions.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware that this firm apparently traded


without an ATOL licence this year although it quoted one? Is he further aware that as a result a great deal of money was lost by many people who thought they were covered by the Air Travel Reserve Fund Act 1975 when they were not covered? Can he further say what effective form of policing the Civil Aviation Authority was able to bring about in this case? What form of compensation will there be for people who lost money and holidays when this firm collapsed?

Mr. Davis: I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on the specific facts relating to this case, because, as I understand it, the CAA has instituted a prosecution against Pearl Islands Tours Ltd. for illegal trading during 1976. On the question of adequate surveillance, however, I must point out that, however vigilant an organisation might be that is invested with the power to police other organisations, there are, unfortunately, bound to be breaches of the law. I do not believe that the surveillance by the CAA has been proved inadequate. It was made clear during the passage of the Air Travel Reserve Fund Act that it related to licensed air travel organisers, and this company was not licensed.

Mr. Tebbit: After all that wordy waffle, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he expects the CAA to do its job properly when, as it points out on rage 10 of its annual report, its effective functioning is in jeopardy and responsibility for this state of affairs lies wholly with the Government, who have been warned, both formally and informally, on a number of occasions? What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about that?

Mr. Davis: There is the very closest liaison between the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority. I do not accept the indictment coming from the lips of the hon. Gentleman or that he has placed a correct interpretation on the facts.

THE "OBSERVER" (ALLEGATIONS)

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you will be making a statement, or whether you are able to inform the House that a statement will be made, on the report in the Observer yesterday concerning alleged

corruption by three Members of Parliament. In that report it is suggested that Members of Parliament are above the law as it affects ordinary individuals in cases of corruption and bribery.
Would you care to comment whether it is a breach of privilege for a newspaper in these circumstances to name one Member of Parliament in the case, without mentioning the others, thereby, as a result of failing to name names, by inference pointing the finger at anybody else whom the cap might fit?

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that I sought your permission earlier today to submit—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not customary to make reference to an application that I have turned down.

Mr. Madden: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Speaker. It is in relation to your advice and guidance, as the guardian of the interests of Back Benchers, that I ask whether you would be willing to initiate discussions between the usual channels to enable the Government to make a statement on the matters referred to in the Observer yesterday, with particular reference to the apparent anomaly whereby Members of Parliament cannot be faced with legal proceedings for corruption and bribery? It is essential that a statement should be made today by the Government, making clear what their intentions are and what their future actions will be on this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is obviously very much a matter for yourself, but the Lord President of the Council, who is indisposed today and very much regrets that he is not able to be present, has asked me to assure the House that he will study very carefully anything said in the House on this subject today.

Mr. Speaker: I have noted with great care what has been said. It has not been raised as a matter of privilege and therefore it is not a matter for me to rule upon. But I gather, from what the Government Chief Whip said, that there will be a statement of some sort. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael Cocks: No.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, of course, I take heed of what the hon. Gentlemen has said, and I will consider it.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (TELEPHONE SERVICE)

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw attention to the fact that the telephonic communications of this House seem to have broken down completely this morning. It was quite impossible, for a reason that I cannot mention, to get through to your office this morning. Will you please have this matter investigated? The telephone system in this House is much worse now than it ever has been.

Mr. Speaker: I will have inquiries made. It is not an unmixed blessing that the hon. Gentleman was unable to get through to my office.

WRITTEN ANSWERS (EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT)

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a small point but may not be unimportant. In the answer to the Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), the Secretary of State for Trade referred to a Written Answer given to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) in the European Parliament.
I question whether it is correct to refer to Written Answers given in that place. When a Minister refers to a Written Answer in this place, we have the Answer, because it is printed in Hansard and we should have seen it. I do not think that the Official Report of the proceedings of the European Parliament is printed as quickly as our own Official Report and it is not easily available. Perhaps you would care to look at that point.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear that the Official Report can be referred to, but not everybody sees the answers given in the European Parliament. Since I am not responsible and no Speaker ever accepts responsibility for Ministers' replies, perhaps the Minister will note the comment that I have made.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. David Price: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. This is a separate point in relation to the rights of Members. I draw attention to the fact that today, on a Monday, without Prime Minister's Questions intervening, we have reached only Question No. 17. There was a time when on a Monday it was reasonable to expect to reach about Question No. 50. Indeed, I have had an answer to a Question No. 62 on a Monday.

Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Had he been present all the way through Question Time, he would have known that I have appealed time and again to hon. Members, but we have had three and four questions in one supplementary. If I may say so, the answers have matched the length of the supplementaries.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS (LAW OF PRIVILEGE)

Mr. Molloy: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the law of privilege relating to hon. Members, with specific reference to allegations of bribery and corruption connected with parliamentary duties.
The events over the weekend have caused great concern, I should have thought, to the overwhelming majority of Members of this House, as well as to the general public outside.
As I understand the position, if any hon. Member of this House is concerned or connected with any act of bribery or corruption in connection with his parliamentary duty, he is above the law. That is, apparently, the situation in which we find ourselves. I believe that no single Member of this House wants that situation and I believe that this privilege should be totally removed.
As I understand it, it originated in the Bill of Rights of 1689, and, if for no other reason than that, it ought to be overhauled. It was further examined under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, and then again in 1906, in relation


to the Prevention of Corruption Act, but this privilege of Members of Parliament has always remained.
Last July the Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Salmon, reported, and we have not had an opportunity to discuss that report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned that a newspaper had carried a report. From one aspect, it could be commended for bringing attention to this situation. I do not wish in any way to impinge on the rights, freedom and liberty of the newspapers, but in enjoying that freedom and liberty they have to maintain certain standards, and I believe that it is wrong and unfair to mention one Member of this House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I help the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, the House at the same time? The hon. Gentleman does not have to argue his case now. He has to explain why the matter is urgent enough to take precedence over all other business.

Mr. Molloy: I believe that the reason I have submitted is pretty good on its own, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has said, the finger of suspicion could be pointed at every single Member of the House.
I believe that this loophole must be removed. I do not believe that any Member of this House wishes to have this privilege and that the necessary steps ought to be taken swiftly to remove it. Perhaps a good start would be to have a debate this afternoon on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the law of privilege relating to hon. Members, with specific reference to allegations of bribery and corruption connected with parliamentary duties.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. In giving my decision, I am not ruling whether this matter ever should be debated but whether it should have precedence. I have given careful consideration to the representations the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES &c. (No. 2) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and her right hon. and hon. Friends to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, while recognising the necessity of an orderly change over to metrication where this is essential for commercial reasons, declines at a time of continuing high inflation and economic crisis to give a second reading to a Bill for which there has been inadequate preparation on the part of the Government and which takes powers to phase out certain imperial measures beyond the requirements of the European Community Directive No. R/3070/75.

Mr. Fraser: It will probably be for the convenience of the House to try to conclude this debate by 7 o'clock. I shall keep my speech as brief as possible and, with the leave of the House, seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at the end of the debate. I start with the non-metric part of the Bill.
Public comment and indeed the Opposition amendment have dwelt almost exclusively on those parts of the Bill which deal with metrication. I propose to restore the balance by saying first about those parts of the Bill which deal with other matters.
I start with Clause 3. This clause empowers the Government to make regulations authorising the use for trade of prescribed weighing or measuring equipment where the stamp indicating that it has been passed for use for trade has been obliterated or defaced. This power is needed primarily to deal with price changes on petrol pumps. At the moment, on some pumps, adjustments of the mechanism as a result of a price change require the defacement of the stamp. At the moment it is technically illegal, although practically necessary, to operate under these circumstances.
The Government propose to make such operations legal in certain conditions and for limited periods of time. This is be-

cause with the number of pumps involved it is impossible for inspectors to re-examine and reseal equipment such as petrol pumps instantly after a change in price.
Clauses 4 and 5 have already been the subject of two Private Members' Bills and will, I hope, have the wholehearted support of the House. They confer powers to standardise containers. At present, many important household goods can be sold only in prescribed quantities. For certain products, however, particularly those with varying densities, standardisation by weight is not necessarily the best aid to the consumer. Washing powders are an example. Standardisation by weight would result in a confusing multitude of different pack sizes which would be of little or no help to the consumer, whereas standardisation on the basis of the size of the container would be of real assistance.
In the example I have quoted, the industry has recognised this. On a voluntary basis it has adopted standard pack sizes, and I am sure that consumers have found the standard "E" sizes a real help in making effective value-for-money comparisons. The Government believe, therefore, that the power to standardise containers will be an important addition to consumer protection. In addition, Clauses 4 and 5 contain power to prohibit the false indication of the quantity in containers. For example, an opaque pack only half full could be banned.
Clause 6 fills an important gap in existing legislation. At the moment, local authorities may charge fees for work undertaken by their weights and measures inspectorate in carrying out their national responsibilities, but there are no powers to charge fees for work undertaken in connection with EEC obligations. This work will mainly concern the testing and stamping of measuring equipment constructed in accordance with requirements of EEC directives. Under Clause 6, the Government will therefore be empowered to prescribe fees to be charged by local authorities for all services, facilities and documentation provided by them in pursuance of Community obligations.
Clause 7 merely makes corresponding amendments to the legislation of Northern Ireland.
In Clause 8, the Government propose to take powers to relax or suspend certain


statutory provisions during times of shortage. The need for such a power became apparent during the sugar shortage of 1974. During this time, packs of sugar were specially imported to cope with the emergency situation. In many cases the sale of this sugar was technically illegal either because weights and measures law relating to quantities or weight marking was being contravened or because certain labelling requirements of the Food and Drugs Acts were not being complied with. Very large numbers of retailers were therefore technically at risk of prosecution in selling this sugar. Under the clause, the Government would be able to suspend or relax these requirements if a shortage were to arise in the future.
I return to Clauses 1 and 2 and metrication. I do not propose to burden the House with a detailed history of metrication in this country. If I did, I should start with the comments of Sir Christopher Wren and James Watt, and I think that the House should be spared that.
Both Labour and Conservative Governments have accepted time and again that we should adopt the metric system. Progress towards it is well advanced in industry, commerce and agriculture and it is frequently used in retail sales of packed goods. Teaching is overwhelmingly metric, and we have a generation of children and young adults who have learned no other system. Parliament itself has approved many Orders facilitating a change to metric. Even the Opposition recognise the need for change—although, to do them justice, they recognise it a little less in their reasoned amendment than they did when they were last in government.
The issue is no longer whether the change should be made but the pace of that change and how best we can protect and assist the consumer. The question is not what should be done, but how best we do it. The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) summed up the matter well in our metrication debate of 1973 when she said that, in the interests of consumers, it was more profitable for the House to discuss how and when.
Metrication began in earnest in this country with the announcement of the then President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-

sea North (Mr. Jay), in May 1965, when he stated:
The Government are impressed with the case which has been put to them by the representatives of industry for the wider use in British industry of the metric system of weights and measures. Countries using that system now take more than one-half of our exports; and the total proportion of world trade conducted in terms of metric units will no doubt continue to increase. Against that background the Government consider it desirable that British industries on a broadening front should adopt metric units, sector by sector, until that system can become in time the primary system of weights and measures for the country as a whole."—[Official Report, 24th May 1976, Vol. 713, c. 32.]
A Standing Joint Committee on Metrication was set up in March 1966. Its main recommendations, which were accepted by the Government, were first, that the end of 1975 should be the guideline date for the adoption of the metric system by the country as a whole. No one can accuse us of pushing this too quickly.
Secondly, it recommended that a metrication board should be established as a central planning agency for co-ordinating the programmes of change and thirdly, that there should be the necessary legislation to remove obstacles to the adoption of metric units.
The Metrication Board was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in 1969. The Conservative Government White Paper of February 1972 demonstrates that the views of that Government differed little from their predecessors. At this stage I should like to quote simply one sentence from that White Paper:
The move to metrication has been taking place over many years, but the Government believe that the time has now come when they must act to ensure the orderly completion of the process.
The tenor of that statement is repeated in the Conservative White Paper time and again.
Successive Governments have quite clearly concluded that the adoption of metric units is in the national interest and have pursued through the Metrication Board and through individual metrication orders a bipartisan and consistent approach to this subject. The principle is not in dispute. Hon. Members may disagree. This is a matter for the judgment of the House, but I am entitled


to my view. I have quoted from the Conservative Government's White Paper and Labour Government announcements. It is not so much the principle which is in dispute. There is a justifiable concern about how we achieve it and the pace of the change.

Sir John Langford-Holt: The Minister must not assume that, because he has quoted official statements from one side of the House or the other, this commits members of the party concerned to full support of the principle. Many hon. Members on both sides are very strongly opposed to the principle of metrication.

Mr. Fraser: I recognise that. It is not true that the principle has unanimous approval.
I turn now to the Common Market aspect of this matter. I hope that the short account I have given of the history of metrication will have dispelled one misconception. If not, then I again assert it, Metrication is not being foisted on us because of our membership of the EEC. It is our decision not theirs. Successive Governments had concluded long before our entry that it was in our own national interest to change over. Indeed, decisions of my right hon. Friends the Members for Battersea, North and Bristol, South-East would hardly be alleged to have been in anticipation of entry to EEC. It is true that under the Treaty of Accession the United Kingdom under the Conservatives accepted that the international system of metric units would in due course be the sole system of units throughout the EEC. But, as I pointed out during the debate on the Units of Measurement Directive on 7th July, this undertaking was a consequence of our own agreed national policy and not the cause of our policy.
The amending directive then being discussed has since been adopted and the various changes which I indicated to the House that I considered to be necessary, are all incorporated in the final version. This means briefly that our EEC obligations are, first, to adopt eventually the SI metric system; secondly, to authorise the use of this system; and thirdly, to phase out, or cease to authorise in legal terms, imperial units. The whole aim of

our negotiations on this latest directive was to ensure that our EEC commitment reflected our national position and did not dictate it. In this we have succeeded.
While, therefore, I am in no way seeking to disguise the fact that the Bill which we are now considering would give the Government the necessary powers to meet these EEC obligations, I hope I have shown that these obligations are geared to our own national needs and that the EEC dimension is of secondary importance in considering this Bill, which is first and foremost a measure brought forward in the national interest. It is our decision, not theirs.
What galls me about part of the Opposition amendment is the attack on the power
to phase out certain imperial measures beyond the requirements
of the latest EEC Directive. As the Opposition know full well, the Treaty of Accession obligations which they undertook is to phase out all imperial units. Under their terms they were prepared to see a 1979 deadline imposed. What this Government have succeeded in doing is to ensure that the major say as to the timeing of the phasing out of the most importan imperial units will be under the control of the British Government and our own Parliament, not under the control of the EEC. The Opposition surely cannot advocate seriously that this House should not have the power to control its own destiny in this way and that the timetable should be set by Brussels.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Will the Minister not accept that he is taking power to phase out the pint and other important imperial units sooner than under the Common Market directive? He does not have the power to phase it out later.

Mr. Fraser: That is a matter for this House. It is not a matter for Brussels.

Mr. Denis Skinner: Has my hon. Friend considered the mere possibility—and I put it no higher than that—that the Common Market did not impose its directives in the way he has suggested because it knew that as a result of certain diplomatic pressures it could induce a British Government to carry out the measures in the knowledge that they were


doing so by themselves. All the time, of course, the people who run the Common Market were happy with the situation because they knew that they would get their own way. Has he ever considered that this is a Common Market tactic which has been deployed ever since we got into this mess?

Mr. Fraser: I have considered it, and the answer is "No".
There are certain agreed requirements about some smaller and less important measures which the latest directive requires us to phase out by the end of 1979. The Opposition amendment clearly recognises these requirements. Perhaps they would explain to the House how this obligation can be met without the powers being sought in the Bill. I must say that I find the proposition that we should be limited by a Brussels timetable incredible.
I return to the situation in our own country. First, virtually all our trade is with countries which already use or are converting to the metric system. Only five small countries in the world are not yet committed to adopting this system.

Mr. Lawson: What about America?

Mr. Fraser: America is committed to adopting it. The President of the United States has signed a Bill which authorises the change to the metric system. Virtually every country in the world is committed to making this change, as is every single Commonwealth country. Therefore, there could be a domestic argument, an EEC argument, a world argument or a Commonwealth argument for metrication, as almost all our trade is conducted in the metric system.
British industry, in order to survive, has been forced widely to adopt metric units and to work to metric standards. Much of this metrication has not directly affected the ordinary consumer—for example the agricultural steel, engineering, construction and shipbuilding industries—unless the consumer in question happens to work in one of those industries. But now increasingly metrication is directly affecting the consumer. His children are taught the metric system and little or nothing about the other system [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] Hon. Members opposite must try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
The consumer durables the consumer buys—refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, kitchen equipment—are manufactured and described in metric; the capacity of his car is described in litres without causing great difficulties; the everyday items he buys—paint, cornflakes, sugar, clothing—are probably in metric sizes; the oil for his car or for his home heating is measured in litres; his trunk telephone charge is based on kilometres; the weight of the parcel or letter he posts is measured in grammes. There are many other examples. I repeat that the question is not whether we go metric but how best and how quickly we complete the change and for how long we retain for legal purposes two different systems of measurement.
I must tell the House that the Government have no intention of imposing a short, sharp change to metric. The Bill by itself does nothing to change the system. All that it does is to confer powers to be used later and after consultation.
At the same time I must point out the disadvantages of a dual system. If British industry is required to run separate imperial and metric production lines there must be penalties of duplication of design packaging stockholding and selling.
There are other disadvantages such as the education of our children in one system and their leaving school to cope with another. Another is the confusion to the shopper of a dual range of measures in the shops, sometimes in the same product.
Some purchases can he made only in metric quantities. I gave the example of sugar. On the other hand there are other products which are sold at the moment only in imperial quantities, for example, tea. In between these two extremes there are being sold today on the shelves of the supermarkets and shops throughout the country a vast range of products which may be in either imperial or metric quantities. To take just one familiar example, some shops sell fabrics and carpet in metric units; others in imperial units. The consumer is finding it increasingly difficult to make value-for-money comparisons and this position will get even worse unless the Government do something about it.
This country has a long history of consumer protection in the weights and measures field, and its reputation both for the quality of its weights and measures legislation and for its enforcement is second to none. It is no exaggeration to say that this fabric, so carefully constructed over many many years, could disintegrate if this situation is not brought to an end.
If anyone doubts the confusion I would urge him to visit his local supermarket and to look at the quantities in which goods are being sold today. Let him try to make value-for-money comparisons between, say, two washing up liquids, or even the same washing up liquid in different packs, one of which is sold in a 20 fluid oz—568 ml—container, and the other in a 1 litre container. Another example is that of bottles of fruit squash. Some of them will be of 25 fluid oz and others of 1 litre.
In many cases manufacturers already dual mark and give other useful information, but even where that is done it is impossible to avoid confusion in the mind of the consumer. Consumer protection disappears when the shopper needs either a degree in mathematics or a pocket calculator in order to make value for money comparisons.
It is a small wonder that the consumer organisations have been long pressing for the introduction of the Bill. It is small wonder, too, that the retail organisations, which do not stand to gain a great deal from metrication, have made it clear that the only way to avoid chaos is for the Government to step in and to ensure that the process is properly completed. The Government are persuaded, much against their inclination, that the most sensitive area of all—that directly involving the consumer—is the one area where the voluntary approach to metrication will not work and is not working. In that situation the Government have a clear responsibility to end consumer confusion. The Government can take only one logical direction, and that is toward the phasing out of the use by trade of imperial units.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The Minister said earlier that the Government had no intention of

imposing a short, sharp change in phasing out these imperial alternatives. If that is the case, is it not so that these dual specified quantities will exist side by side for quite a number of years to come?

Mr. Fraser: Yes.
I turn now to the aims of the Bill. Put at its simplest it proposes to repeal Section 10 (10) of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 which in effect obliges the Government to maintain the use of imperial units. Let me expand on that point. I gave the example of liquid soap being sold in 20 fluid oz. packs and 1 litre packs. If the Government decided to bring forward a prescribed quantities Order for the sale of washing up liquid—

Mr. Skinner: God Almighty!

Mr. Fraser: It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say "God Almighty", but the wives of some working people have to go and buy washing up liquid, and making value-for-money comparisons can be an almost impossible task for them.

Mr. Skinner: I was simply commenting upon the jargon.

Mr. Fraser: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am using the normal terminology.
If one wanted to make a prescribed quantity Order, Section 10 (10) of the 1963 Act requires one imperial and one metric range. In this case, the very confusion which the Order is seeking to avoid gets built into the Order because it is necessary to lay down the dual range.
The Bill proposes that the Government should have more flexible powers than exist at the moment to bring forward proposals to remove or restrict the use of weights and measures for the purposes of trade. These flexible powers are necessary in order to make the sector-by-sector approach to metrication possible, and also to allow the possibility of, say, phasing out the use of imperial units at the manufacturing level in advance of, or instead of, action at the retail level, or deal with one product but not another. While the Bill removes an obstacle to the completion of the metrication process,


it does not in itself either advance metrication or make illegal the use of imperial units. The Bill by itself changes nothing. It provides a legal framework within which the Government, in consultation with consumers and other affected interests, can plan a transition. On each and every occasion that that happens the affirmative consent of Parliament to an Order will he required.
I know that hon. Members in every part of the House and interests outside were concerned when the Bill was first introduced that the consumer should be adequately protected, and I am grateful for the helpful, constructive and cooperative spirit in which I have been able to discuss these matters with hon. Members and consumer interests outside the House.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the consequences of discussions. Some people were concerned about the need to consult consumers. They wanted consultation to be the precondition of any Order. This has been done, and Clause 2 has that assurance written in.
I was asked whether the power to require dual marking—that is, to display the equivalent of a metric or imperial quantity on the pack or elsewhere—could be universal. As a result of the consultations, whe have taken the power in Clause 2 to do that. I was asked also to make display mandatory, and I have built that into Clause 2 as well. I was asked to give an assurance that the exercise of the Bill's powers would be linked wherever possible to consumer protection measures. An example of that would be for them to be linked to prescribed quantity Orders. It will be.
In the last Bill, but not in this one, the Opposition asked for a timetable for metrication. If I am genuinely to consult consumers, and if the House is genuinely to have its voice in the matter it would be inconsistent to lay down a rigid timetable. However, I regard pre-packed goods to be early candidates for change with changes in the sale of weighed-out foods to come at the end of the change to the metric process.
Many people were concerned that metrication might lead to unjustifiable price rises. There is a good deal of evidence, for example on conflakes and

dried vegetables, to suggest that the contrary is so. But what people believe to be true is sometimes as important as what is true. I therefore give again the assurance that the Government will not hesitate to use their powers under the Prices Act to freeze the price of essential goods during a period of transition if they judge it necessary to do so.

Mr. Stanley Newens: In the process of the decimalisation of the currency there was a considerable amount of rounding up which undoubtedly imposed considerable burdens on consumers by way of price increases. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is still a danger that a similar process will operate when we go over to metric measurement if the Bill is carried through?

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this. I do not believe that there is much evidence to support what he suggests or to indicate that there is quite the danger that he propounds. Nevertheless, I agree that what people believe to be true is also important. Any change in a price involves rounding up or down. I am determined to ensure, however, that before and after the change to metric the powers of price fixing should be used to ensure that the consumer is protected and is seen to be protected. I am determined also to use powers which exist under the Prices Act.
A reference to the Price Commission to monitor prices during a change over has already been made. I further accept the suggestion of the National Consumer Council that there should be a metrication monitoring unit to deal with queries and complaints from customers. I am grateful for the suggestion and advice that I have received from all parts of the House, and I hope that the Bill and the changes made by it, along with the assurances I have given, are acceptable to the House.
Let me turn finally to the Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment, if that be the correct description of it. It begins by recognising the need for an orderly change over.
where this is essential for commercial reasons".
This is one of the main arguments for the Bill, for without it no such orderly change over is possible. Perhaps the hon.


Member for Gloucester will be able to explain to the House how the Opposition can recognise the need and deny the means at the same time.
The second argument is that the House should oppose the Bill because of the economic situation. I have already pointed out that the underlying reason why we are going metric is because of the economic benefits to the country. These economic benefits are quite clearly spelled out in the Conservative Government's White Paper of 1972. That White Paper says:
If the UK were to retain the imperial system, while at the same time having to use metric to an increasing extent for international trade, British industry would be less efficient and less competitive and the higher costs would be cumulative. This would have repercussions on the standard of living and we would have burdened ourselves with an economic handicap".
The amendment then alleges
inadequate preparation on the part of the Government".
I will not burden the House with a recital of the list of all those organisations whose views have been taken into account by the Government, nor with details of the extensive discussions which have taken place with the consumer organisations. This Bill is the outcome of 10 years experience and discussion. I just remain baffled by the allegation, unless it is based on a total misunderstanding, of what the Bill does.
I repeat again that the Bill does nothing in itself. It simply provides the powers to plan for an orderly change from one system to another. In other words, the Bill is a precondition for planning—not the other way about.
I have said that we shall consult widely, and that obligation is built into the Bill.
Perhaps I can give the House a further undertaking. The Department of Prices and Consumer Protection will report to Parliament each year on the progress so far made on metrication and give a provisional forecast how progress is seen for the future and how it will be linked with consumer protection, information and education. The forecast would inevitably be a tentative one, but it would set the stage for consultations, not least with consumer organisations, and would provide a background to individual orders for prescribed metric quantities and cut

off dates and would help to put each step towards metrication in perspective.
I hope, by proceeding in that way, to demonstrate the link between the powers in the Bill and planning for change. The Bill is not some idiosyncratic whim of the Government. It has the support of every major consumer organisation: the Consumer Association, the National Consumer Council, the National Federation of Consumer Groups and countless other consumer organisations. It has the support of the CBI and, as Patrick Hutber failed to point out in his article yesterday, it also has the support of the TUC. It has the support of practically every organisation which has been concerned with the problem of metrication. I now ask for the support of this House.

4.13 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, while recognising the necessity of an orderly change over to metrication where this is essential for commercial reasons, declines at a time of continuing high inflation and economic crisis to give a second reading to a Bill for which there has been inadequate preparation on the part of the Government and which takes powers to phase out certain imperial measures beyond the requirements of the European Community Directive No. R/3070/75.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the House that the directive number in the amendment has been changed subsequently. The directive referred to is Directive No. 76/770.
Because this is an issue of the greatest importance to the whole country and one on which many people feel very strongly, it is imperative that the House should understand fully the implications of the measure before us, the likely effects, the background and the reasoning behind the Opposition's amendment.
Not least of all, I deal first with the Short Title of the Bill—the Weights and Measures & c. (No. 2) Bill [Lords]—which is probably the understatement of all time. This is the metrication Bill. Despite what the Minister of State said, it is the means whereby metric weights and measures will be made lawful and imperial weights and measures will be made unlawful, and this will apply not only to those goods which are currently sold in prescribed quantities but to additional goods which will be added to the list and


go right outside the sphere of consumer goods and other areas.
Rightly or wrongly, successive Governments first initiated and then accepted the general principle of metrication for this country, not because metrication was an improvement, not because it was a sign of progress, but purely in the interests of standardisation. Because there has been a good deal of misrepresentation on the part of the Government and others, let me remind the House of the facts as they are clearly on record.
This country was committed to metrication by a Labour Government in 1965 outside the context of the Common Market and without consultation with Parliament. It was unbelievably announced in a Written Answer by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 24th May in his capacity as President of the Board of Trade. In 1968, the commitment was reconfirmed by the present Secretary of State for Energy, who then set up the Metrication Board. Subsequently, a Conservative Government accepted the general principle of the previous Labour Government's commitment to metrication and started to examine ways in which there could be an orderly transition to voluntary metrication and gave the House for the first time an opportunity to debate it in 1970 and 1973.
In the first two instances, the decision was a purely arbitrary one. There was no debate and no vote on the principle. By 1970, when a Conservative Government came to power, matters had moved too far for a vote on the principle to be taken, though my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) renegotiated the commitment of the previous Labour Government and got the period by when we had to be completely metricated extended to the end of 1979 or beyond in certain cases.
To this very day, therefore, the elected representatives of the people in this House have never voted on the principle of metrication. That opportunity should have been provided in 1965 when the commitment was first made or at the very least in 1968 when the Metrication Board was set up.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Lady tell the House whether on this occasion, after all these many years, the Conserva-

tive Opposition intend to vote on the general question of principle, because it seems from the Order Paper that the reasoned amendment will allow them once again as an Opposition to opt out of the making of that decision of principle?

Mrs. Oppenheim: As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is prescient. I was about to come to that very point. The vote tonight cannot be on the principle of metrication, and that must be made clear to those of my hon. Friends who feel the same. That decision has been taken already. Tragically for the House and for the country, we are no longer in a position to vote on the principle of metrication.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: That is a very queer argument. If the hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends wish to vote against the principle, they can vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they have a reasoned amendment which accepts the principle, though they suggest that possibly it goes to far, when they can vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. Is she saying that the Conservative Party will not vote against the Second Reading but that they intend to vote only on the reasoned amendment?

Mrs. Oppenheim: In the first place, I tried to make it clear that, by 1970, matters had advanced to far to enable a vote on the principle to be taken. Tonight's vote will be against compulsory metrication, and Government supporters will be very welcome to join us in the Division Lobby.
Once again, under a Labour Government, we were presented earlier this year with another fait accompli. They said "Here is our Weights and Measures & c. Bill. Time is running out. We must get on with things. Give us the powers and allow us in our infinite wisdom to impose mandatory metrication as and when we please." This piece of arrogance was followed by their last-minute shamefaced withdrawal of the Bill and its reappearance in another place, this time amended.
The fact that the Government were forced to amend the Bill by the action of the Conservative Opposition has, if anything, improved it, but in the light of


the Government's intentions, the economic situation, and the events that preceded it, the Bill is still not acceptable to us.
Given that we can no longer take a decision in the House on the principle of metrication, there are two overriding objectives that need to be met and reconciled as the essential prerequisite in any transition to metrication, whether voluntary or statutory. The first is the need to end uncertainty for business and industrial concerns. The second, and equally important, is the need, as the Minister appreciates, to protect consumers as far as possible from confusion and adverse economic effects. Both are essential and not, I believe, irreconcilable. Neither objective is fully met in the Bill.
The third consideration, to which the Minister referred only briefly, is the cost of conversion at present. In business and industry there has been a background of unresolved chaos for which the present Government and the former Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection have been largely responsible.
During the 1973 debate the former Minister of State, no doubt consumed with metrication mania which has characterised him, had an apopletic fit about what he described then as drift and delay, yet when he came to power as Minister of State at the Department for over 28 months he did very little to prepare a comprehensive programme, to put consultations in train, to invite consumer groups to confer with him to see what ways the consumer could be safeguarded. In fact, he became a kind of metrication fugitive. The only time he spoke on the subject was when asked to do so at Question Time; and then replies were mostly on the defensive. He did not deign to initiate consultation with business and industry but merely deigned to receive representations.
By the time he left the Department the situation had degenerated into chaos and havoc. Even his replies to parliamentary Questions were contradictory, conflicting and sometimes incorrect. No wonder business and industry were distraught by the time the first Weights and Measures Bill was introduced. Everybody accepts that business and

industry need to know about cut-off dates, and also need to know with certainty what extensions, exemptions and exceptions the Government intend to make. Some industries, particularly the weighing-scale industry, need an even longer period of pre-notification because they have special problems of their own.
I wish to clarify the position of business and industry as I see it. It is not so much the fact that overwhelmingly they all want change to metrication as that, above all, they want to see an end to uncertainty. It is true, as the Minister said, that some Orders have been laid under the existing Weights and Measures Act providing for metric alternatives, but those are purely permissive. Although they carry cut-off dates agreed after statutory consultation, they are not mandatory as long as the imperial alternative remains. I do not think the Minister when moving the Second Reading made that point very clear.
The Government's intentions as to a comprehensive and definitive programme for the transition to metrication had never been enlarged on or debated in the House by the time the first of the Weights and Measures Bill was introduced, nor are they now by any means clearly defined.
I must make it clear that it was not necessary to wait for the statutory consultations under the Act in relation to each order one at a time. The Minister's predecessor could have held less formal but constructive consultations to use as a basis for a phased timetable with details of exceptions, exemptions and consumer safeguards. We could and should have debated these matters before any Bill was introduced into the House. This would have ended the uncertainty for business and industry and would have led to a far more satisfactory outcome for the consumer.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Has the hon. Lady received a document from the CBI calling for early implementation of the Bill? I draw her attention to one point in that document, in which the CBI says:
Little or no further progress can be made without legislation to remove the single most important obstacle to metrication, namely, Section 10(10) of the 1963 Weights and Measures Act. Industry has been urging government for


several years to repeal the section in the Weights and Measures (No. 2) Bill.
The point is that the CBI is asking the Government to take urgent action.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I am well aware of the contents of that memorandum, although I do not agree with the point made by the CBI and I shall come to that a little later.
As I was saying on the subject of pre-consultation and debate before the Bill was introduced into the House, the inevitable result of past neglect has had to be a last-minute dash to metrication, and its consequences remain unsatisfactory. It is only fair to say that I do not attach any blame to the present Minister, who has done all possible to make up for lost time in negotiations and has conducted a more open and conciliatory consultation than did his predecessor.
For that sector of industry with which the CBI is largely concerned—and here I deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans)—which does not produce consumer goods for sale in this country, the implications of metrication are few. Many such industries have already gone metric, particularly if they are already exporting to metric countries. The main concern relates to industries producing and selling goods in prescribed quantities in this country and to measurements affecting everything beyond this category. One of the problems often advanced is that as machinery wears out, in particular packaging machinery, such industries do not know whether to replace it with metric or imperial machinery. This is a valid point that can be met by a firm commitment to dates agreed after consultation on a voluntary basis, however far ahead they may be.
However, one of the points that is frequently made by business and industry that I find most interesting and revealing is that they say that as long as metrication remains permissive there will be a reluctance to go metric where there is a competitive advantage in ignoring metrication. That says a great deal and shows how popular metrication is likely to be to the consumer.
This leads me to the second of the objectives to which I referred earlier—namely, the need to protect consumers from confusion and economic disadvan-

tage. First and foremost, it must be clearly understood that consumers are having metrication imposed upon them against their will. This was confirmed in a poll conducted for the National Consumers Council and reported in the Daily Telegraph on 18th July this year. It showed that the number of people who thought that metrication was a bad thing for the country had more than doubled since 1973.
One of the main difficulties in consumer reaction after the experience of decimalisation is that, whether rounding up in prices takes place, there will always be a suspicion that this has happened, thus creating an atmosphere of distrust and dissatisfaction which does no service to shopkeepers and consumers.
Most of the consumer groups which favour metrication do so on the grounds that a prolonged transition overall will lead to the existence of goods marked in both imperial and metric quantities together on the shelves. This will create consumer confusion and prevent people from "thinking metric", as they are admonished to do by the Metrication Board. Despite these admonitions, I cannot think metric voluntarily or by dictation. It is not that I cannot do the arithmetical calculations but that it is very difficult for people to envisage in their own minds actual metric quantities, even when they have carried out the arithmetical conversions. Nor do I accept that this Bill, the cut-off dates in existing Orders, or Government intentions in other areas of metrication will or can achieve a quick transition and thus avoid this confusion.
The experience of statutory metrication in Australia proves this view. I have with me a number of clippings of advertisements from an Australian newspaper dated 9th April 1976. Although Australia started to go metric in 1970, in one newspaper on one day in 1976, 20 advertisements refer to imperial quantities and measurements, only two to imperial and metric and only four purely metric. I think that that proves the point that statutory metrication will not lead to dual measurements disappearing from the shelves.
It has been pointed out by the Minister and others that where metrication has already occurred in this country, such as in the case of breakfast cereals, there


has been no great trauma. That is perfectly true. However, such items as have gone metric have been items of no great importance in family expenditure or items not usually bought or recognised by weight.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. John Fraser indicated dissent.

Mrs. Oppenheim: With due respect, most people do not normally, and did not previously, buy cereals by weight. Perhaps they should have done, but they did not do so. They have bought them by the size of packet.
There is the exception of sugar. What has been the experience with sugar? When sugar went metric this summer at a price about 22p for a 21b. bag, we were assured that as a 1 kilo bag was approximately 10 per cent. more, the price would rise by no more than 10 per cent. However, in a letter to the Daily Mail of 15 September 1976, a correspondent says,
For months, if not years, the Metrification Board have been telling me in adverts that metrification
—as the correspondent calls it—
would not mean that prices would go up. For the past fortnight my wife, my brothers' wives, my sister and my neighbours' wives have all told me that the price of two pounds of sugar, with three ounces added to make the metric weight, has increased to the price of two and a half pounds of sugar. So will any of the well-paid brains of the Metrication Board now tell them, not me, who nicked the other five ounces of sugar?
My own office has telephoned the Metrication Board about this matter but got no further explanation.
There may be a perfectly good explanation for sugar being sold at 27p, but what good will a Government metrication prices monitoring unit be in reassuring consumers when, as the Government freely admit, prices will vary from shop to shop and from one part of the country to another, so that uncertainty and distrust will remain, and no monitoring board in the world will be able to show whether the real cause is rounding up on metric quantities?
The three-month price freeze will have precisely the same effect, for exactly the same reason. The freeze will only delay the confusion and delay price rises. It will not prevent either from happening.
The Government have—very helpfully, I think—put forward proposals for unit pricing and dual marking. There again, confusion cannot be avoided, because whereas the Order in question attempts to establish accepted rounding up or down as to quantity comparisons and to eliminate the objections of Housewife's Trust and others, it covers only a few of the examples given and the all-important 1-oz and 2-oz measures are missing. In two cases of dual transitional quantities there has been rounding down and not up. Also, perhaps above all, because we have a decimal system which includes the halfpenny, exact cost comparisons cannot be made. This is absolutely impossible, even with unit pricing, and, therefore, it undermines the principle of unit pricing in this respect.
The Government's timetable, as it exists so far in permissive Orders—and from what we have heard from the Minister of State—does not take sufficient note of the fact that one of the most important factors affecting poorer families and pensioners is that in almost every case the transition will be to a larger and more costly size. There should be a given period during which an important number of items in the family budget are not subject to metrication.
I turn to exceptions, exemptions and extensions, and how they can be reconciled with careful planning and organisation in the transition. First and foremost, because we are on the brink of another explosion in food prices, and people in this country have already been subjected to an unprecedented period of inflation, we believe that there should be a firm undertaking that metrication of pre-packed basic foodstuffs important in the family budget should be delayed until the latest possible date, that is, until after 1979, when they must be reviewed, but that firm dates must be agreed in each case following consultation and announced on a voluntary basis within six months.
We believe that weighed-out foods—fruit, vegetables, confectionery and meat—should be exempted until after 1980, but that once again a firm date should be negotiated and, following voluntary agreement, announced within six months, and that certain items should not go metric at all in the foreseeable future,


such as road signs, land measurement and petrol.
The price of petrol is already very high. Quite apart from the cost to the industry of conversion and the difficulty that the industry is having at present, uncertainty would be ended if the Minister were to announce that petrol would be exempted. There is an added consumer confusion which would be reduced, particularly as cars are often purchased on the basis of "how many miles per gallon" they are advertised to do, and the metric equivalent will be meaningless to many people for years.
The other red herring that is often advanced—not by the Minister of State today, but advanced by his predecessor—was that we have an undertaking not to refuse to allow pre-packed foods in metric quantities to enter this country after 1977, unless there is a derogation. Again, I submit that no such derogation would be necessary. Most of the pre-packed foods imported are luxury goods and if they enter in metric packs it does not matter at all. The two exceptions are tea and butter. Most imported tea is packed in this country, as is the majority of imported butter. As the British butter market is very lucrative for those who export to this country, I cannot imagine that the small minority who export to us in pre-packed quantities would want to do something that would put them at a monetary and competitive disadvantage.
As for road signs, quite apart from the cost, those who find it a little difficult sometimes to keep within existing speed limits could be joined by thousands more who would be even more confused by limits based on kilometres per hour.

Mr. John Page: I have been reading the Bill again. Will my hon. Friend say whether the Bill, if passed, will say that the change from miles to kilometres is to be mandatory?

Mrs. Oppenheim: It gives the Government the powers, potentially, to lay Orders that are subject to the affirmative procedure, which would provide a statutory basis for this.

Mr. John Fraser: No. Perhaps I may make this clear. The mile is not used normally in terms of trade, and any changes in speed limits or road signs would, broadly, be outside the ambit of

the Bill. Speed limits would have to be subject to separate regulations laid before the House and would not flow from the Bill at all.

Mrs. Oppenheim: When the Minister is winding up the debate, perhaps he will say under which Act the new regulations would be made.
The other and main red herring is the EEC directive. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover is not in the Chamber at present. In the draft directive which preceded the directive, and which appears much more sensitive to consumer needs than the Government, it is specifically provided that while certain items, which are not important, to which the Minister has referred, have to go metric by 1979, other items, including all those I have mentioned,
which the United Kingdom and Ireland are unable to abolish in the immediate future because of administrative complications (for example, alteration of road signs giving distances in miles or for psychological reasons (use of the pint, etc.) need not be reviewed again at the end of 1979.
The draft directive said,
In this field efficiency, which dictates that a uniform system should be adopted within the Community as soon as possible, should be coupled with the need not to cause too drastic an upheaval of deep-rooted habits and not to upset the economy of the customs of certain member States.
I cannot see why the Government could not take advantage of the provisions in the draft directive, which has now become a directive, in relation to the items I have specified and, at the same time, end uncertainty in the industries concerned, which would then know that metrication of these items could not start before 1980, after which a firm date would have been fixed. I again emphasise that this date should be fixed and announced not later than early next year, following consultation and voluntary agreement.
Of course, there are scores of anecdotes about metric muddles, some amusing and some irritating, but time will not allow me to deal with them at present. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will fill that void. However, the metric foot available in "do it yourself" shops, and the continuance of aircraft engine spares in imperial units are but two examples. I also object very


much to having my height put in my passport as one and a half metres. I shall remain firmly in my own mind, and on my passport for as long as I am able, as 5 ft. 2 ins.
I turn now to one of the most important aspects of our objections. I refer to the overall cost of conversion, particularly in present economic circumstances. No estimate of the full cost of conversion has ever been given, although a rough estimate could have been collected industry by industry. However much preparatory conversion may have been completed in some industries, the cost will be immense and will nearly all be passed on in price.
There is never a right time for this to happen, but there never could be a worse time than now or over the next couple of years. I will give just one example in one area where we can make an estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) will be interested in this. In an article in the Daily Telegraph on 9th October of this year an estimate was given that the cost of changing one letter—the number "3" —on road signs and relating to one speed only—the 30 miles per hour sign—in one county, was £20 a sign, or about £40,000 per county. On that basis, the cost of altering the signs throughout the country will be astronomical.
Yet we have received no reassurances from the Government that this will be delayed or that it need never take place. On 8th July—this is from Hansard, col. 666—the former Minister of Transport indicated that it was likely that the road signs for speed limits would change with the yard and the foot, so clearly the Government do not intend to exempt them.
Then what, for example, will it cost smaller shopkeepers to convert existing scales or to buy new ones? For many of them the expense will be the last straw. Although the Government have agreed to leave this sector to the last, presumably after 1980, no firm date has been given and the weighing scale industry is in great difficulty until the Government complete their consultations with it and announce the date.
Then there is the question of packaging costs due to conversion. Where new machinery is not already in existence, this

will have to be purchased over a period when there is bound to be a substantial increase in packaging costs, anyway.
It is against the background of all these difficulties and others that the Government have moved the Second Reading of a Bill which gives them virtually carte blanche to move to mandatory metrication as and when they want to. It is true that the Orders that will be laid imposing mandatory metrication and which the Government are empowered to lay under the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Graham Page: Both my hon. Friend and the Minister have said that these Orders will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I can find that nowhere in the Bill.

Mrs. Oppenheim: The Minister referred to some of the Orders being subject to the affirmative resolution, as are the prescribed quantity Orders at present. Our experience so far, even with those which are subject to the affirmative resolution, is that we have been given one and a half hours after 10 o'clock at night in which to debate them and no opportunity whatsoever to oppose them. In most cases under the Bill there will be no opportunity, because we are told that the statutory consultations under the existing Weights and Measures Act have been so protracted that any further delay or rejection would result in severe damage to the industry. So there is no doubt that there will be very little or no parliamentary control over the imposition of mandatory metrication.
I would not give this Government a blank cheque on an overdrawn account, let alone on such an important issue. Even hon. Members opposite, who may have more faith in their Government than I have, must be alarmed at the lack of parliamentary accountability and control that will ensue. Of course the Government would like to get the legislation through so that they can proceed with stealth and at night to lay their mandatory metrication Orders at a speed which suits them politically.
It is true that provision has been made, which is welcome, to consult consumer groups before the relevant Orders. There are other minor provisions for consumer protection in the Bill which are in


themselves unexceptionable and potentially useful, but the overwhelming impression is that these measures for consumer protection have been thrown in as ballast to divert attention from the main purpose of the Bill.
No one, not even the most fervent advocate of metrication, can say that the change-over can occur without being traumatic. Yet the Government expect us to allow them to proceed with mandatory metrication in this way without either putting it to the country or having proper parliamentary control, and then they expect us not to oppose the Bill in some way.
Of course there are problems for the industries concerned which must be resolved without delay. Of course there are the problems of a whole generation of schoolchildren emerging from schools not unaware of imperial weights and measures but perhaps more familiar with metric weights and measures. Then there are the problems of harmonisation of prescribed quantities as required by the European Community.
I do not underestimate or belittle these problems. It would be unrealistic to do so. However, the problems and the repercussions for consumers will be greater. The cost for business and industry will be very significant. We are living through a period of grave economic crisis that will no doubt be prolonged. Falling living standards, hardship, further inflation, particularly in food prices, are now inescapable. Surely it cannot be right at such a time to proceed to impose widespread metrication upon the country with the burdens and the costs that will be involved, except where this is absolutely necessary and where it has been agreed on a voluntary basis.
Above all, it cannot be right to impose on those who have suffered, and who will continue over the next year to suffer, a great fall in living standards and who do not know how they are to keep their heads above water, the extra burden of coping with the metrication of basic foodstuffs.
Metrication is far more complicated than decimalisation. There are many more variables involved. Even in good times and with the most careful preparation and the best will in the world, confusion and higher prices cannot be

avoided. In present circumstances they may well prove to be insupportable. People worry about these things far more than perhaps Ministers or administrators realise. They loom large in the lives of many people and cause them a great deal of anguish, particularly people living alone and the elderly. Already, tragically, we read in the Daily Mail of 8th October of the first suicide over metrication.
This should not be a political issue because, as we have said all along and have made clear, the vote tonight cannot be a vote on the principle of metrication. However, we should be failing in our duty, most of all to the poor, the elderly and the disadvantaged, if we did not say to the Government that the speed and the scale of their metrication programme, as they have so far proposed it, is unacceptable. We should be failing in our duty, further, if we did not point out that the Government have done nothing to meet the justifiable complaints of industry and to seek to remove the uncertainty.
We should also be failing in our duty if we did not say that we do not and never have supported the concept of statutory metrication and that we cannot, even at this late stage, in the present economic circumstances allow the Government, under the unacceptably sweeping powers of the Bill, to proceed on what is still a largely uncharted course, at an unknown cost, at too fast a rate, to impose mandatory metrication on a largely unwilling country.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: When the first Bill came before the House I had strong reservations, which I expressed at the time. A number of my hon. Friends and myself were concerned about some of the implications of the measure.
I greatly deplore the opportunist line which has been taken by the official Opposition. The setting-up of the Metrication Board and a move towards metrication appeared at one time to have all-party support. One realises that there can be certain difficulties with numbers in the Lobbies in the evening. We have heard what the Opposition Front Bench says, but we shall have to wait to see whether Opposition Back Benchers will follow their Front Bench on this issue or will take what seems to be a different


line from that taken in the past. It has been said of the Tories that they
promise, pause, prepare and postpone—
And end up leaving things alone
All we have heard from the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) is that she believes in metrication.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I do not.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady does not? But the Tory Party believes in it, does it not? Does the hon. Lady say that her party is opposed to metrication?

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I said that we no longer had an opportunity to take a decision on the principle of metrication. If we had that opportunity, I should be one of those against it.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady did not answer the question I put to her. Is she saying that her party is opposed to metrication? Presumably, the fact that she does not reply means that she herself disapproves of metrication, which is not the position taken by her party.

Sir John Hall: The hon. Member will recall that many of us on this side, as well as Members on his own side, have from time to time protested that we have never had an opportunity to debate this issue and come to a conclusion on whether we support the principle. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides would have been opposed to the principle at the time and would certainly have voted against it.

Mr. Evans: All I say about that is that the Tories were in power from 1970 to 1974. If they were for four years denied the opportunity to discuss a major matter of this kind, that is a matter for their own party. The fact is that they took this country into the Common Market, and there are implications in the Treaty of Accession which lead us to move forward to the metric system.
I return now to my own position, since I had strong reservations about the earlier Bill and, with some of my hon. Friends, played a part in postponing it. I consider that the version of the Bill now before the House is an improvement on the earlier version and goes some way

to meet the assurances which those of us concerned about this matter wanted. Our concern rested primarily on the question of consumer protection, and we felt that those assurances had to be given.
I asked my right hon. Friend to give us and the House the assurances that were asked for by the National Consumer Council. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in a Written Answer on 4th August, replied in these terms:
First, the Government accept that there is a danger that metrication might be thought to be responsible for higher prices and that it is important that consumer confidence be established in this respect.
He said, further, that the Government would be
prepared to use their powers under the Prices Acts to freeze prices during changeover periods. The need to use these powers can be examined during the consultation procedure which is specifically required under the…Bill before individual Orders can be brought forward.
Thus, on the question of consumer protection, that safeguard has been provided by the Government.
My hon. Friend dealt also with the suggestion that there should be a Metrication Monitoring Unit, saying that
the Government accept that it is important that queries and complaints by consumers are properly dealt with and monitored, and, against the background of the need for restraints on public expenditure and manpower, are examining ways and means of doing this. The possible rôle of voluntary consumer groups is also being considered.
The hon. Lady said that expense was involved. I thought she was arguing that the Opposition were not opposed to metrication in principle, although they were opposed to it now. But the longer we delay these things the more expensive they will become. Both sides of the House agreed to set up the Metrication Board to introduce metrication. If we do not proceed with introducing metrication, it will cost the country £1 million or thereabouts to maintain the board while it remains in existence. Therefore, that argument put by the hon. Lady falls.

Sir John Hall: The hon. Gentleman will know that time and again we on this side have tried to get from the Government at least an estimate of the cost to the country of introducing metrication. Has he any idea of that cost?

Mr. Evans: I can give no reliable figure. There will certainly be a cost,


but inflation has to be taken into account, as well as the way the new system is introduced. I can give the hon. Gentleman the view of the CBI. The CBI argues that the longer we delay the introduction of metrication the more expensive it will be for the country, because if we are to export, the question of imperial or metric weights and measures must be settled, and the sooner the world can reach an international standard of measurement the better it will be. I shall come back to that later.
Another matter which concerned us was the question of the availability of small packs for pensioners. The Government gave an assurance—this also comes from the Written Answer of 4th August—in these terms:
Thirdly, whilst metrication in itself cannot solve the problem of increasing the availability of small packs for pensioners, I can give the assurance that all metrication orders have included and will continue to include provisions which make the sale of small packs legal".
That was a matter on which we had reservations, and those reservations have been met.
Finally, the Government accepted
that metrication will provide an ideal opportunity to extend prescribed quantity legislation to goods and products not at present subject to such legislation."—[Official Report, 4th August 1976; Vol. 916, c. 832.]
Those were the main points regarding consumer protection which gave concern to many of us on this side, and they are now met. I remind the House that there was the National Consumer Council, set up by a previous Government but unfortunately abolished by a Conservative Government. That council, under the chairmanship of Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd, said at an earlier stage:
The Consumer Council believes that conversion to the metric system will be of advantage to consumers.
Further, the Consumers Association wrote to the Government recently to say:
We are pleased that you are taking enabling powers in the Weights and Measures Bill, and we hope these will make rapid progress through Parliament. Each month that now goes by without these powers, the greater the possibility of utter confusion as some members of the trade change to metric measure and others do not.
Many other organisations have expressed a similar view, and my hon.

Friend mentioned some of them. They include the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the Housewives Trust, Age Concern—which looks at these matters primarily from the point of view of elderly people—the National Council of Women of Great Britain and the Consumer Standards Advisory Committee of the British Standards Institution, as well as many local consumer groups. All have said that they support this measure. I am sure that Opposition Members as well as I have received representations recently.
The hon. Lady said that she would refer to the CBI. She did not come round to that, and I am still waiting. I referred to the CBI during her speech and to the fact that the CBI supported this measure. I shall read her speech tomorrow, but. I did not hear her reference, although I was carefully listening for it.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I shall deal with that.

Mr. Evans: I now understand that the hon. Gentleman will refer to it. I have here a letter from the CBI. Perhaps the CBI no longer corresponds with the Opposition, so I had better tell them what the CBI says. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member opposite ask whom the CBI represents. My understanding is that the CBI represents a large part of British industry. We know that the TUC has said that, provided there is consumer protection, it will accent the Bill.
Here is what the CBI says:
The decision in 1965 to go metric was made in response to the trend in the world at large towards adoption of the metric system. The trend accelerated sharply in the years following our decision; most recently the United States has legislated for the change and is planning to complete it within about seven years from the date of the Act, December 1975. The United Kingdom's decision was not dictated by our membership of the European Community".
This might meet some of our reservations. We are anxious not to be pulled along by the Common Market. The CBI says that it would have been necessary to do this even if we had remained outside. That is the argument of the CBI. Whether in or out of the Common Market, we should have had to do something about metrication.
The letter continues:
Our trade with the rest of the world demands that we proceed with the change; our competitiveness in all markets, including the home markets, demands that we derive all the potential benefits from the simpler, more efficient metric system.
That is from the CBI. It is coming to something when we on the Labour Benches have to quote not only the TUC but the CBI. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) smiles—she is even laughing. We have reached a sorry state when the Tory Party appears to be out of step with most of the organisations in Britain.
The Retail Consortium expresses reservations about this proposal. If we are to implement machinery affecting the retail trade, we have to be careful. The Retail Consortium represents the Co-operative Union, the Multiple Shops Federation, the National Chamber of Trade, the Mail Order Traders Association, the Multiple Food and Drink Retailers Association, the Retail Alliance, the Retail Distributors Association and the Scottish Retail Federation.
The consortium states:
The Retail Consortium welcomes the Government's commitment to introduce enabling powers for metrication, particularly on behalf of those sectors which have proceeded with metrication on a voluntary basis and which are at this time meeting continuing, not abating, consumer resistance and in some cases suffering a commercial disadvantage.
The Consortium also welcomes the Government's intention not to introduce a timetable of statutory cut-off dates but rather to provide for full consultation with the sectors of the trade in order to take account of their particular problems.
Special problems face the retail food trade dealing in catch-weight measurements. Thousands of weighing machines and scales would have to be converted at enormous cost to retailers and it is clear that certain sectors of the retail food trade would not metricate without statutory compulsion to do so, and indeed are asking the Government to obtain from the EEC a derogation until 1985 in respect of catch-weight sales.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has similar testimonials from the housewives of this country or, if not from the housewives of the country, from those in his constituency?

Mr. Evans: I do not know whether the hon. Lady is presuming to speak for the

housewives of the country. Earlier, I gave a long list of consumer organisations, from the National Consumer Council to the National Council of Women. I do not know whether Conservative women are represented anywhere. How are we to get to know what the housewives are thinking?

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: The hon. Member should ask his constituents.

Mr. Evans: With the introduction of metrication, we have to be sure that we do not experience difficulties similar to those which arose when decimalisation was introduced. I am sure that the Government will take that into account. I know that Tory Members are elected to accept change. I do not believe in change for its own sake. I believe in changes being made to improve things. The whole world is moving in one direction—towards an international metric system.
We know from our school days that it was difficult to learn the imperial system of weights and measures.

Mr. John Page: Oh!

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member may not have had any difficulty, but would he not admit that the metric system is easier? If he did mathematics at school, he must realise that that is so. Although I shared the reservations of those who were against decimalisation, I now find it easier to think in terms of 100p to the pound than in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.

Mr. John Page: indicated dissent.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member shakes his head. There shakes the head of a diehard Tory.

Mr. John Page: It is a fact that many people who have to deal with change find it much more difficult to deal with lots of 50p pieces and with figures like 37p and 62p than they did when there were 12 pence to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound. There is no shadow of doubt that the introduction of decimalisation explains the high sales of pocket calculators. It is also why the Prime Minister this afternoon is calling for better teaching of the three Rs.

Mr. Evans: I do not know whether a pocket calculator has been invented to


work in imperial units. If the hon. Member considers inches, feet, yards, furlongs, miles and the other units that we have, I feel sure he will agree that metrication is better.
I want to quote a little from a letter I have received from the National Farmers Union. We tend to take the position of the housewife—the consumers' position—on food matters. Sometimes we are accused of not paying due regard to the farmers. In this letter the National Farmers Union says:
The programme for the change to the use of metric units in agriculture and horticulture was to be based on the farming year 1975–76. This decision was taken in 1972 "—
mark the year—
after extensive consultation between the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. James Prior—
the same right hon. Member who sits in the Shadow Cabinet today—
and the three United Kingdom Farmers Unions and the Country Landowners Association.
We do not have all that many Socialists in the Country Landowners Association.
The NFU continues:
The changeover is now well advanced and arrangements for conversion have already been made by the suppliers of fertilisers, agrochemicals, feedingstuffs, seeds, etc.…It is expected, therefore, that the transition will be largely completed by the end of 1976.
There are those of us who had reservations about the first Bill that was introduced. We believe that the Minister and the Department have gone a long way to meet our reservations. At this time of high inflation and economic difficulty, we do not want unduly to burden retail organisations and others. The rest of the world is now going metric. We must think in terms of a tremendous export drive and we must therefore gear our machinery to produce in metric units. I hope that Tory Members will join in supporting the idea of metrication and assist the Bill on its way.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) wants to hasten the change or whether he takes the view that we must not rush it through. He said both one thing and the other during the course of his speech. Nevertheless, I am sure he would agree, as must be agreed

on all sides, that the change from weights and measures in imperial measurements to those in metric will cause a great change in our daily lives, both in our homes and at work. Therefore, on behalf of the public, Parliament should take a very close interest in, and make a very close examination of, any legislation on this subject. We must examine not only the Bill, which is merely an enabling Bill to allow the Executive to put it into practical effect, but also any Executive implementation of the Bill.
I want to call attention to the powers that the Bill seeks to put in the hands of the Secretary of State to bring the metric system into operation without effective reference to Parliament and without any genuine assurance that the exercise of those powers will be debated in Parliament. That is one further step in the process of the erosion of the function of Parliament by the Executive. Many of us were greatly impressed by the Dimbleby Lecture by Lord Hailsham a few days ago, in which the noble Lord pointed out the way in which the powers of Parliament were being overridden by the Executive. Although the Bill is perhaps one small piece of legislation I think it is another example of that.
When one looks back at the 1963 Act one sees that any order to alter lawful measurements under that Act had to be made by means of bringing a draft before this House, and by the Government seeking an affirmative resolution on that draft.
The 1963 Act made that provision about orders concerning transactions in particular goods; about orders relating to statements of quantities of goods, making the quantity known by weighing the goods, and so on. That Act even made an affirmative resolution necessary in the case of fees for testing standards, and equipment.
In the course of his opening speech the Minister said that orders which were to be made by the Secretary of State under the Bill would be subject to affirmative resolution. There are certain matters which will remain subject to affirmative resolution under the 1963 Act, but there are some substantial alterations in that Act which make orders subject only to the negative procedure, that is, subject to annulment by Prayer in this House.
I refer to Clause 1(1) of the Bill, which empowers the Secretary of State to amend, by order, Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act. That is to say, he can remove all the imperial measurements if he chooses. He can state what is lawful and what is not lawful and thereby create an offence for using unlawful measurements. But that order will in future be subject only to the annulment procedure in this House. Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act could not he altered by order, but it can now be altered by an order which would be subject only to annulment.
We all know the great difficulty in getting a Prayer against an order debated in this House. Time and time again when a Prayer goes down on the Order Paper it remains there, and further and further names are added to it, but never is it given time for debate. I say "never"; if one is lucky one may get a debate upstairs instead of on the Floor of this House. We have now reached the stage at which the Executive can persuade a Minister to provide in a Bill that orders can be made by the negative procedure, knowing perfectly well that that is an absolute power to legislate.

Mr. John Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman is making a rather sweeping speech. I ought to explain that Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act will in future only be a matter of record. The two schedules that are added to the Bill preserve a list of weights and measures for use, and these will be subject to all the present protections under the 1963 Act.

Mr. Page: I am not sure whether the Minister is not misleading himself. If he turns to page 2 of the Bill, he will see that a new Part VA is added to Schedule 1. The heading of that Part VA refers to
Definitions of units which may not be used for trade".
That will be in Schedule 1, which may be altered by order, so that the Minister can add any number by an order subject only to annulment. He can alter by addition as well as by subtraction. I do not think he will ever be advised to use any other form of order. The Minister talked about the prescribed quantities order, but I do not think he will ever need to use that in future. He will

merely need to use an order under Clause 1. At any rate, he has got complete power to do that.
Clause 2 adds a Section 9A to the 1963 Act, and that section will not be subject to the affirmative resolution under that Act. It will be subject only to an order under this Bill. Under Section 9A
The Secretary of State may from time to time by order amend Schedule 1A or 3 to this Act".
Schedule 1 of the Bill adds Schedule 1A to the 1963 Act which again is headed
Units of Measurement Lawful for Use for Trade".
Here again, he can alter the units of measurement lawful for use for trade by an order subject only to the negative procedure of this House.
On page 3 a new Section 9B is added to the 1963 Act, which says that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring or authorising a person to afford information giving equivalents, and so on. That is very important to the housewife, who will need to be informed, by advertisement, placard or poster in the shops, when she is buying her goods by the new measurements. The whole of that requirement for exhibiting that sort of information in the shops will be made by an order, which it is very doubtful will ever come before this House for debate.
The Department's draftsmen may be very fine draftsmen, but they are not always right. It is not the Parliamentary Draftsmen who draft orders; it is the Department's draftsmen, and they do not always know better than hon. Members. We are entitled to debate that sort of order.
One then passes to Clause 6, which states that the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe the fees, again with no affirmative resolution before the House.
An extremely important clause is Clause 8, which deals with
Shortages of food and other goods".
These are emergency orders, which will have a considerable effect on the housewife and on the public in general. They are orders which ought to come before this House for debate even if they are


emergency orders. They are orders which the Secretary of State should make by a form of order which remains in operation for, say, only 28 days unless it receives the affirmative resolution of this House. That is the type of order that should apply to these emergencies concerned with shortages of food.
But Clause 9(4) states that
An order under section 8 of this Act, except an order which extends to Northern Ireland only,"—
I do not know why Northern Ireland should be so exempt—
shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament
That is the negative procedure. It is true that Clause 9 states that the Minister must consult certain people; indeed, in his speech the Minister made a great point of the fact that there would be consultation. We know that everybody is consulted except Members of Parliament. Time and time again, Ministers come before the House and say, "We have sent out consultative documents to the town clerks, the CBI, the NFU" or whoever it may be, and an hon. Member is terribly embarrassed when someone presents a consultative document to him and asks, "What do you think about this?", when he has never seen it. It may well be that it has never been put before Members of Parliament—although everyone else has been consulted—until the order, drawn up and unamendable, has come before the House. That is treating Parliament with contempt, especially when it is dealing with matters as important as those contained in this Bill. I ask the Minister to reconsider his thinking on the Bill. It can be amended in Committee. At that stage we can provide for the right kind of orders.
When presenting the Bill the Minister argued that the principle of the change from imperial to metric has been accepted. As we have heard from interventions, that itself is contentious. For one thing, it has never been debated in the House. However, assuming that the principle is accepted, that does not give the Government any right to carry out the practical aspects of the change without proper reference to Parliament.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Newens: We frequently hear criticism of the weight

of legislation that is caused by the large number of Bills passed through the House. I support most of the Bills that are attacked, but I believe that we could well do without this one.
The proposal to phase out imperial weights and measures has been argued on a number of grounds. We have been told that it is necessary to standardise our weights and measures in line with other countries. We are told that it is necessary to avoid having two legal and parallel systems of weights and measures. We are informed that our children have been educated in metric units. We are told of the ease of working out calculations in tens.
I agree that those arguments have considerable strength, but I am still unhappy about the proposed changeover. Surely there are other arguments that could be considered more seriously. The simplification that it is alleged will be brought about as a result of metrication may well be true for the younger generation, but apart from younger people metrication will make things more difficult. People will tend to think in imperial units, in some respects, for the rest of their lives. Many people never change habits of a lifetime in quite simple matters, and they will not change them in this respect.
The interests of the consumer mean that people should know what they are buying and what they are doing. Many people will spend the rest of their lives in a complete fog about what they are doing following metrication. They will be unable to detect whether they are getting full value for money.
I accept that the Bill is by no means as bad as that which was previously proposed, but it does not meet all the objections advanced by opponents such as myself. The major objection is that despite all the thought that has been given by the Consumers Association and other bodies which have expressed an oponion, the cost of the changeover will be astronomical. It is inevitable that prices will be rounded up. We cannot expect manufacturers and distributors to cut the price per unit when the change takes place. Rounding up occurred with decimalisation and I am sure that it will take place once again. When rounding up is permitted, many people will be tempted to


put on a little extra in addition. Above all, it will be extremely difficult for the ordinary shopper to tell whether advantage has been taken of the opportunity afforded by the changeover.
Costs will be pushed up because of the need to install new equipment and new machinery. There will be the need to provide new notices. The changeover will not apply only to the replacement of scales and measures; a great variety of equipment in industry and distribution will have to be changed completely. It will not be merely a question of changing the petrol pumps; a tremendous variety of other forms of measuring will have to be changed.

Mr. John Fraser: Does my hon. Friend realise that many petrol pumps are manufactured metric and that there is the cost of converting them back to imperial?

Mr. Newens: I realise that that is a problem. However, I think that my hon. Friend knows that there will be a serious conversion problem should the price of petrol exceed £1 per gallon in due course. There will be a serious problem in that respect if we change to metrication. I cannot believe that we should countenance a considerable outlay of funds for the purpose of metrication at a time when everyone recognises that we need much more investment in new equipment for productive purposes and when many people are calling for cuts in expenditure.
The Opposition have talked about a smooth transition. Let it be remembered that following the changeover many people will still have equipment, including many items of household equipment, built in imperial measures. The replacement of parts and components will be required over a considerable period. Presumably, imperial measurements will not be available after a period if we change to metrication components. The cost will be enormous.

Mr. John Fraser: indicated dissent.

Mr. Newens: I see that my hon. Friend is shaking his head. We must appreciate that many employers will say that it will

be impossible to manufacture according to dual sets of measurements. In those circumstances, replacement units will not be available and the scrapping of large items of machinery will become unnecessary.
The Bill provides in Clause 2 that it will be an offence to use any weight or measure for trade that is not in the schedule. That would be a quite outrageous power for the House to grant. Many people will continue to use the old measurements for all purposes long after the Bill is passed and long after the whole question of metrication is finally settled. I understand that in France some measurements that were in use before the French Revolution are still in use, despite the fact that they should have been discontinued nearly 200 years ago.
It seems that the Conservative Party is seeking to have the best of both worlds. It is posing as the champion of the consumer by tabling the amendment, but the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has said that she accepts the principle of metrication.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: indicated dissent.

Mr. Newens: I hope that the hon. Lady will clarify the situation. Do the Opposition accept or reject the principle of metrication?

Mr. Ioan Evans: The amendment is quite specific. It states
That this House, while recognising the necessity of an orderly change over to metrication".
That is an acceptance. The Opposition are accepting that metrication is to come.

Mr. Newens: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Clearly the Opposition are trying to have it both ways. They are accepting the principle of metrication but endeavouring to make political capital out of the stance adopted through the amendment. if they are opposed in principle to metrication, instead of introducing an amendment they should vote against the Bill's Second Reading. If the hon. Member for Gloucester is serious, she will known very well that many hon. Members sitting on the Opposition back benches would be extremely unhappy if


the amendment were carried, or if metrication were not accepted. It is hypocritical of the Opposition to take up these two positions. They should come down one way or the other. I am totally dissatisfied with their stance.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to divide the House against the Bill?

Mr. Newens: As I cannot support the Bill, it would be totally wrong for me to go into the Lobby in support of my hon. Friend. I recognise that he has tried to make the best of a bad job, but the powers granted by the Bill are unnecessary and could well be used by another Minister in a different way from that in which my hon. Friend intends that they should be used. If another Minister decided that all the road signs should be changed from miles to kilometres I understand that it would be possible for that step to be taken under the terms of the Bill. In those circumstances, I cannot support it.
At the same time, my position is different from that of the Opposition. I am not happy with the Opposition's amendment. I am opposed in principle to what is proposed, and in those circumstances I shall take the only step available to me and abstain.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert: As with fluoridation of the nation's water supply, metrication will prove highly unpalatable to most people if it is thrust at full speed down their gullets. The Minister should not delude himself that the proposal has the support or backing of a great number of people, except through the lack of an escape route by any alternative.
Although I have not for long been a Member of the House, I understand that the principle of metrication has never been the subject of a vote in the House. Therefore, the verdict is unknown. No more did the British people express themselves in favour of large-scale immigration. We now have a multi-racial society, for better or for worse. Some people think that multi-racialism is a good in itself, but there was no opportunity until far too late for the British people to express an opinion one way or the other.
If we are to have a metrical multiracial society, let Ministers beware of claiming that it is on behalf of, and at the behest of, the consumer. There is no doubt in my mind that, had the principle been put to the people 11 years ago—I declare at once that the fact that the Secretary of State for Energy was instrumental in setting up the Metrication Board is not an argument in its favour—they might have expressed themselves clearly on that subject, but that question was not put.
Nor should the Minister think that consumer organisations are an adequate substitute for public opinion at large. I sometimes think that those organisations are as representative of the people they endeavour to serve as people sometimes think Members of Parliament are of their electorate. It is a matter of debate whether their views, even following the horse-trading that has gone on behind the scenes since the previous Bill was introduced, are necessarily those of the British housewife in every respect.
Another warning I give to the Minister is to avoid going round saying "Metrication is good for you". We have been through that with decimalisation. We were told that it would be much easier for school children and people in trade and industry and every walk of life if our method of calculation were in units of 10. When we finally achieved decimal currency, it was decimal fractions combined with the vulgar fraction of a halfpenny, which made it much more difficult in some respects for retailers and others than it had been under the old system. That vulgar halfpenny remains as a simple—and permanent, one hopes—reminder of the stupidity of prevaricating politicians.
So it is with metrication. We are told that it is a vastly simpler system. It has no basis in the world around us. Whereas the foot and the inch have some relevance to the human body and people's experience, the metre has none: it is purely arbitrary. It was originally intended to be a ten-millionth part of the are of the meridian from the North Pole to the Equator. Now it is an abscure measurement based on the krypton-86 atom, which we are told may eventually be measured in terms of the speed of light. These calculations may be fine in their place but they do not have much relevance to people's everyday lives.
Although the metric system may have some advantages, it seems to be arbitrary, in the way in which the system it supersedes is arbitrary. Let us have none of that claptrap in the argument on metrication. Although it may prove to be simpler in some respects, it has no anthropometric or natural justification. It is an arbitrary measurement. A better argument would be to say that metrication is the first step to world Government and that we were standardising measurements worldwide. That might be more acceptable to the British people than the spurious arguments that are put forward on these occasions.
It is Conservative and Labour Governments which have not challenged the principle of metrication, not the British people. We may end with a system which is forced upon us, which has come upon us gradually over 11 years and longer and which will continue, but there is no justification in the people's mind for having metrication compulsorily forced upon them by the Bill or by Government intervention.
If there were a commercial advantage in metrication, the interested parties in commerce and industry would have been able to overcome the obstacles and come together to their joint advantage, but they need the Government's help. Whether they need the help of the Bill is what we are debating. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said, we should perhaps be voting upon the principle tonight, but the point has passed at which the principle can be voted upon.
As a nation we are amongst the exclusive band of countries that are not yet committed to metrication or are about to be committed. Having heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer only last week that we are now in the second division of the economic nations of the world, I should not like Britain to be relegated to the league containing countries like Liberia and Borneo. That would not be a suitable ending to our great Imperial past, or a suitable destiny.
I accept that we may be past the point at which we can withstand the onward development of metrication as a system of measurement, but we do not need to press the issue to the point where we have the Bill. Although the Minister disputed practically every part of the

amendment, he was not prepared to dispute the claim that we are still suffering continuing inflation and a state of economic crisis. I was glad to hear that, because that view is not shared by his colleagues in the Department. Less than a fortnight ago the new Secretary of State in a speech on economic affairs said that "signs of success abound". If these "signs of success" are so abundant, they must be very skilfully camouflaged. If they are in such great number and so difficult to see, people must be worried about bumping into them in the dark. I share the view with millions of others that there is still a state of serious economic crisis.
The Minister had to acknowledge that, since the Labour Government came to power, there had been an increase in prices of 55·9 per cent. He may well find, after he has been in office a few months, that the price he has paid for his seat at the Cabinet table is, like all prices under a Labour Government, likely to be far too high. Likewise, the Under-Secretary of State has said that we have reached a plateau in inflation. After coming down for 11 successive months, inflation has now risen for two successive months and is likely to rise again. The Under-Secretary seems to have discovered a phenomenon previously unknown to geology—an undulating plateau.
It is fair to say that we are in a state of considerable economic danger and it is not the time to bring forward such a measure, not only because of the inevitable cost—and such costs will properly and inevitably be translated into prices, at a time when they are rising too fast by far—but also, as we saw with decimalisation, the opportunity will be taken, whether consciously or not, for the myth merchants to claim that further increases in prices are due to metrication.
I do not believe that the changeover to decimal currency was responsible for the large-scale increases in prices. Every time we find ourselves a scapegoat to explain continuing high inflation, we do ourselves a disservice; because we conceal from ourselves the real reasons for our economic plight. Metrication gives yet another opportunity for politicians to fail to see the writing on the wall, for the public to be given yet another scapegoat. We saw the Minister's extreme Left colleagues last week preparing another


scapegoat in the shape of the relaxation of the Price Code. Metrication will be another smokescreen to cover the Government's failure to control inflation.
Already we have seen what damage can be done. The Minister has said in response to opposition to the Bill, that he will meet the transitional problems by a price freeze. It is not right for Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, to claim that industry should be allowed to put up prices in the interests of improved profitability, increased investment and jobs if they then come forward with such damaging, interventionist price-freeze policies, even for a period of six months at a time.
It is significant and depressing that the first action of the new Secretary of State was to intervene over the profits made by television rental companies. If we have reached the stage where it is distasteful, and an offence against public opinion, for a company to make a 16 per cent. return on its capital at a time when the minimum lending rate is up to 15 per cent., what hope has this nation of achieving economic prosperity again? For those reasons, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I declare an interest as a director and substantial shareholder in a retail concern.
It is surprising that I should have the unusual opportunity of following one of my hon. Friends. It is indicative of the interest in this matter, which is of great concern to industry and agriculture and, in particular, to the consumer, that so few representatives of the minority and Government parties wish to contribute to this short but important debate.
I hope that I am not misinterpreting the tone of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) if I say that he sounded unkeen on the metric system. I am glad to know from the wording of the amendment and what has been said from my own Front Bench that whether a change should take place is not in dispute. That is lucky because there is no doubt that we live in a metric world. So far as I am aware, people clap in cricket when one reaches 100 runs and not when one reaches 120 or 160.
We live in a metric world, because the vast majority of countries have always used the metric system or are rapidly going metric. We live in a metric world, as many are aware who, like me, are embarking for the fourth time on the problem encountered by children of learning tables. The ten times table is easier to learn by heart than the others. We are also a trading and a travelling nation and therefore, whatever system of measurement we decide to use, we shall still have to understand and use the metric system.
There is no question but that we should go metric. The question we must debate is how fast we should go metric, and what the rôle of the Government should be, if any, in the changeover.
There are a number of arguments which are relevant to the discussion. The education argument has been touched upon. I attach considerable importance to the fact that large numbers of children are going through our education system primarily learning metric. In my constituency, as nationally, all teaching and all examinations, with the exception of geography, have for some years been based upon the metric system. As long ago as November 1969 a report on mathematics in my constituency revealed that for some time new equipment had been purchased with metrication in mind.
We are a long way down the road in education, but we cannot reap the full benefits until we complete the changeover, because the school leaver will find himself in a partly imperial world. On the sports field one no longer talks of 100 yards. It is several years since anyone has been able to beat the 100-yards record, because the measurement is now 100 metres. When children leave school they find that imperial measures still exist, so we cannot entirely abandon the imperial system. We shall not achieve the real advantage of metrication in education until we have completed the changeover and children can be taught the simple and logical system.
The argument in favour of metrication in industry is even stronger. The CBI has made its attitude clear. It wants the changeover to be completed as rapidly as possible and points out that delays in metrication are harmful to our export performance in the present difficult and


dangerous circumstances. The trend towards metrication is important to countries like Britain which produce manufactured goods for export—Britain exports about 72 per cent. of its manufactured goods. Details of dimensions, performance, components and fittings can be described by the purchasers of the goods in metric dimensions. That is why it is difficult to live in a dual-measure world and why any delay will be harmful to exporters.
We have correctly concentrated most of our arguments on consumers and on how metrication will affect consumers in their daily and weekly shopping. It is helpful if we can consider this in a logical rather than perhaps emotional way.
Metrication is a curiously logical system of measurement. When we look at the facts, what we find is contrary to the illusion, which continues to be put about by some hon. Members—the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has just repeated it—that decimalisation led to an increase in prices. Earlier this year, I asked the former Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she had any evidence that decimalisation had contributed to increased prices. She replied:
The Decimal Currency Board in its Final Report—September 1971—expressed the view that the changeover had not put up prices. I have seen no evidence since that demonstrates that this conclusion was mistaken."—[Official Report, 3rd May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 274.]
Similarly, a letter by the Deputy Director of the Consumers Association to The Times on 29th March, said:
Among the arguments used to delay metrication is the one which says that metrication will contribute to inflation because shopkeepers will round prices up whenever they can, as they did with decimalisation.
Which? carried out a survey at the time of decimalisation to find out whether or not shopkeepers were using it as an opportunity to put up prices.
We found that they were not doing so.
There is no factual evidence that decimalisation was used by shopkeepers to put up prices. There is every evidence, from the competition that exists in the high streets, that they did not do so. It is exactly the same in the case of metrication. We only contribute to the doubts the housewives might have if we continue to lend credence to the suggestion that decimalisation was a contributory factor in putting up prices.
I say to hon. Members opposite that if retailers had cheated and put up prices on decimalisation, the great co-operative movement was part and parcel of the cheating, because its prices moved in line with other prices at the time. That might be some reassurance to hon. Members.
I believe that metrication will be a help to consumers. It is an easier system to use, and because it is easier to use many weighing and calculating machines and cash registers in use in shops and industry will be simpler when they have to concern themselves only with metrication. Perhaps the most important factor of all is that it will be much easier to compare prices.
We have heard a certain amount about price comparison, and about prescribed weights. I have no doubt that when we have completed the changeover to a logical system, and we have both decimal currency and metric weights, price comparison will be considerably easier. The move to prescribed quantities, which must be in the housewives' interest, will, if in metric measurement, make comparison of prices that much easier.
We have to decide, as we make the move, whether we are to move to prescribed quantities that are metric or to prescribed quantities that are imperial. Given that in due course we are to go metric, the logical thing is to move to prescribed quantities which are metric, which, fortunately, is what is happening. If the housewife is still looking not at metric weights but at imperial weights, she will lose the opportunity to snake that comparison of prices.
I have here an interesting comparison of the weights in which various lines of biscuit are sold in seven leading retailing groups—I think that I can say that they are leading groups, since they include a group of which I am a director. Digestive biscuits are a popular purchase, and we find that no fewer than seven standard quantities are sold by these seven major stores. Surely it is in the housewives' interest that there should be prescribed quantities for the sale of digestive biscuits, as for other commodities, so that she should be able to compare prices not only in one store but between stores. There is no doubt in my mind that the present situation is confusing, particularly to housewives and school leavers.
If there are so many advantages, one may ask why it is necessary for there to be any Government action at all. Why should the trade not change over by itself? It is a relevant question, and there are two answers. The first of them we have already heard in the debate. As long as people go round suggesting that prices will rise because of metrication, there will be a reluctance by any retailer to be seen to be selling his goods in metric weights and quantities before everybody else changes over. It is as simple as that. There will be a fear, a misunderstanding, about the likely consequences.
Secondly, there will be some problems for consumers at the time of the changeover. We do not have to reflect very much to realise how much greater these problems will be if different stores change over on different commodities at different times. A housewife going into a store will not know whether she will encounter imperial or metric measurements. Such a situation will lead to more confusion. It is essential, therefore, that after full consultation, but as soon as possible, the Government should lay down timetables and should guide and lead the trade in making the changeover in a way that will cause the least inconvenience to the customer.
Too often we seem to be unable to bring ourselves to take the measures that will initially cause small problems but will bring about in the long term much more substantial and long-lasting benefits. An example is overmanning. There, not only among unions but sometimes among management, there is reluctance to make changes which in the long run will increase efficiency and competitiveness and enable jobs to be created and export orders to be won. That reluctance arises because a few jobs may be lost initially.
Another example is reducing Government expenditure to a level that we can afford. Government expenditure is not necessarily excessive of itself but it is excessive in relation to what we can afford. But it is the same argument. Because jobs might be lost in the short term, no action is taken and the country bleeds to death. Metrication is not such a great issue as that, but we still have to take positive action in order to obtain its long-lasting benefit.
We must recognise that initially there will be some problems in adapting to a new but better system of measurement, but I have no doubt that we should make the change to the metric system. Such a change will benefit schoolchildren, be of great assistance to industry and in due course help the consumers. To avoid confusion and increased costs we should now complete the changeover as quickly as possible. Unless we have this Bill the changeover will not be carried out as rapidly as possible, and therefore I support it.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). I have a modest interest in the food industry, but it is not nearly as substantial as his, for which I am profoundly ungrateful, if that is the word.
It is obvious from the debate so far that there is a love-hate relationship in the mind probably of every hon. Member when discussing the question of metrication. It is easy for us to find the arguments against it satisfying. It is the type of issue in which the arguments against tend to be emotional and historical, dealing with the way in which consumers think and with the attitudes that we have been brought up to believe are right, and to be seen to be seeking to change those ideas, and to be doing so by legislation, is anathema to many hon. Members.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has said, the time has passed when the principle of metrication can be a matter for full and free debate and decision amongst us. As we are being asked to declare ourselves tonight, I say at the outset that I am among those who are in favour firmly of the principle of metrication, but the method by which the Government seek to introduce it is a legitimate question for examination.
I apologise to the Minister for missing the first few minutes of his speech, due to my train having run in a metric manner. But I confess to him that I did not feel assured by what he said concerning the timetable. As I recall the Government's commitment, it was that they would, through consultation and discussion, arrive at a point at which they could come before the House with a Bill which was not only an enabling measure


—which has to be the case—but which would make some very important proposals as to timetable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove said, industry has taken the problem of metrication, broadly speaking, on its own chin or back—depending on one's point of view—throughout the various hazards of economic fortune under Governments of both colours. Industry has now reached a point at which it is clearly desperate for some kind of lead in relation to what it should be planning to do.
In looking at the proposals before us and in listening to the Minister, it appears to me that there is still a very large void concerning exactly how the Government would seek to implement the measure. To talk, as the Minister did towards the end of his speech, of probably having pre-packed foods first on the list and "weigh out" foods towards the end of the list, seems to me a very poor answer, at a time when industry needs guidance and a certain sense of decisiveness, having gone as far as it can already in a voluntary way. I hope that the Minister, in winding up, will be a little more forthcoming on this aspect.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove pointed out, retailers cannot be expected to introduce metric ranges of products while at the same time others are using the imperial system. The confusion to the housewife would be greater, and the trading confusion and competitive position between one retailer and another would equally be distorted.
We know that there have to be soundings up and down if we wish to have a package marketed to the nearest metric weight; and, if this rounding up involves an increased price, there will be a false comparison made by the shopper. It is this falsification of what really goes on in shops that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove is rightly seeking to avoid.
We have legitimately drawn attention in the amendment to inadequacies within the Bill as proposed. Obviously, one has to take the argument about consumer protection extremely seriously. We welcome everything that can be done to monitor the change-over. But, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hove, I am equally aware that the loose talk about profiteering taking place when

changes of measurement or of price are made, is anything but useful if we want to see an orderly transfer. Nobody seeks to make the first move or to implement the decision on the given day.
I hope that the Government will go a little further in organising "M" days for various groups within industry, as well as having an orderly plan, so that, for example, by a certain date the food industry will have to be metric, by a certain date the clothing industry, and so on. If it were to be introduced in a piece-meal manner, I suspect that it would have least disadvantage to the consumer, and allow various industries to proceed with their planning in an orderly manner. This applies also to the industries concerned with providing metric measurement machinery. I have in mind the weighing scales manufacturers in particular.
The question of consumer protection seems to be cardinal to the whole discussion. One of the problems in holding the debate at this time is that there is still a very large gap in the public mind as to what metrication is about, and the public are very ill-prepared for its reception. This must be a criticism of what the Metrication Board has done, but when I compare the amounts of money spent in various directions, I find that the Board has spent £1·5 million over seven years, whereas the Government have spent nearly £1 million in a six months period to prosecute the Price Check Scheme—a total waste of public money and a major piece of public abuse.

Mr. Roger Moate: Recently I had an answer from the Minister saying that the total expenditure of the Board had been in the order of £4·5 million.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) might have indicated over what period of time the £4·5 million was spent. I think that it was over the six or seven years of its life. The comparison still holds—£4·5 million over seven years and £900,000 over six months. We cannot be surprised if the public are blissfully unaware of the scheme.
It is vital that in the preparation for the change-over—if there is to be an orderly progression, as we seek in the


amendment to ensure—the Government recognise that larger sums will need to be spent on promotion. It must be recognised that this is necessary if the public are to be made aware of how metrication will affect products with which they are familiar. I hope that the Government will show a little more courage in prosecuting their intention, even if they find the principle somewhat difficult to sell on both sides of the House.
There are some rather elliptic expressions in Clause 4, which has had substantial amendment in another place. The clause still seems to me to be starting to interfere with the way in which products can be packaged and marketed. I recognise the consumer protection aspect in relation to the impression of quantity that is given, but I hope that the Minister will recognise the great difficulty of ensuring full competition in the sale and presentation of goods without having legislation which interferes with this by discussing the contents by percentage of total capacity. That is going a little too far, in my opinion, in interfering in the marketing process.
I remind the Minister also of the problems that could arise in the Restrictive Practices Court when it comes to getting industries to discuss together the best way of metricating and packaging goods. If the Minister, through the clause, is asking people to start designing packages which are of broadly comparable appearance and content, with precisely similar amounts of product, he is verging very closely upon the territory of collusion in regard to restrictive practices.
I welcome the principle of the Bill, but I think that the amendment is a fair one to table. The ground has certainly been inadequately prepared. Inadequate effort has been devoted to the promotion of the idea of metrication.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) concluded by commending the amendment, as I do, and it is a tribute to the skill of my hon. Friend and those who drafted the amendment that they have done it in such a way as to command the support and enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and the support—which has been described as unkeen—of my hon.

Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert).
I have no wish to delay a vote, after having waited for one for some 10 years. The sooner we arrive at a vote, the better. It seems to me, however, that whatever our views might have been in the past, whether for or against metrication as such, that is no longer the argument. The argument is now about metrication versus total and mandatory metrication—or, to put it another way, it is between the whole-hoggers and the middle-of-the-roaders. I think that the amendment should attract the support of the British people, and of both sides of the House, in indicating the middle of the road as the best way forward.
Other hon. Members have expressed dissatisfaction with the wording of the amendment, but I stress that it neither rejects nor accepts the principle of total metrication. It recognises the need for
an orderly change over to metrication where this is essential for commercial reasons".
This is the fundamental point. Where it is "essential for commercial reasons", I suspect that the commercial organisations concerned will be able to make that change-over in the manner most suited to them.
Furthermore, the amendment declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill. That should satisfy any hon. Member who feels opposed to metrication. But apparently the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), who spoke earlier, only felt able to abstain. In view of the fact that he complained so bitterly about the principle, I feel that that was chickenhearted to say the least.
The other important part of the amendment which I urge the House to take on board is the concluding words, which say that the Bill takes powers to phase out certain imperial measures beyond the requirement of the European Community directive. The Bill takes us further than we need to go to fulfil our Community obligations. It goes further than the obligations which we thought we had accepted, apparently, in the earlier negotiations on Common Market membership. This latest directive has changed the situation. It has allowed us a way out of a situation in which we should never have been put. This is of fundamental importance, and it allows us to follow that middle-of-the-road course in the future.
I turn to the directive. I emphasise its importance. In Chapter D there is a schedule of units, names and symbols which are to be reviewed by 31st December 1979. But the obligation is only to review them. Thereafter, they can be make illegal only by the unanimous agreement of the Council of Ministers, and if the British Government at that time say that they wish to retain in force these imperial units they will remain the law of the land.
We have this way forward, so I do not think that the British people should be deceived about the opportunities which exist for the future. Chapter D "permits" until 1979 and thereafter, if we wish, the continued use of the inch, the foot, the mile, the acre, the pint, the quart, the gallon and the pound—a whole range of familiar units and measures which can remain lawful after 1979 if we wish—

Mr. Sainsbury: Can my hon. Friend say how many square yards there are in an acre, if these units are so familiar?

Mr. Moate: I am more familiar with the acre than with the number of square feet, but I am less familiar with metric units, so I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's point is a valid one.
The question remains, however. We have that right, Therefore, the amendment expresses quite properly that the Bill is taking more powers than are necessary, and I suggest that it deserves the support of the House.
In expressing my own dislike of metrication, although I accept that we have gone so far that it is now impossible to argue the principle of metrication, and in opposing compulsory metrication, I am as much expressing my dislike of the arrogance of the Executive over the years. In saying that, I do not mean simply the present Government, because at least we have a Bill and the opportunity for a vote. When we think back over the history of this proposition, I feel that Parliament has failed the people and that this does disservice not only to Parliament but also to those who want metrication.
If, under the last Conservative Government, a vote had been taken on the White Paper, I suspect that the Govern-

ment would probably have got a go-ahead for metrication in principle. But they never did that. They never called for a vote. They always dodged it, as did the previous Government. Because they dodged it, the British people have always suspected what Governments have denied all the time: that metrication was being imposed on them by stealth. They resent it the more because of that, and they will resist its implementation because of that. Even when listening to the Minister tonight, no one would have believed that at last we should be coming to a decision on metrication. The hon. Gentleman was desperate to prove that this was not a metrication Bill. He said that it was an enabling Bill which gave powers and that perhaps one day we might do it.
Let us be honest and clear about the present situation. Let us be bold about it. The stealth has continued. It still continues. When we think back to the original decision to go metric being introduced by a Written Answer, of the setting up of the Metrication Board again introduced by a Written Answer, of the White Paper which was never voted upon and of another Adjournment debate on which there was no vote, even someone who believes in metrication must feel that this is a record of which we should be ashamed.
Perhaps I might quote some words of A. J. P. Taylor, whose views might not always command universal support. However, his words sum up what I believe. He wrote in the Sunday Express on 15th February:
Metrication is yet another product of those superior people who claim to know what is good for us and that they can run our lives better than we can ourselves. We were never consulted about metrication. We were never openly informed of what was happening until it was too late. Parliament proved useless as the protector of ordinary people. It swallowed the verdict of the 'experts' without complaint.
In my view, that is a feeling which has been generated by our failure to take a clear parliamentary decision, certainly before 1970 when the then Labour Government made the decision, but even during the subsequent four years of Conservative Government when I believe that the Government would have got the verdict they wanted and subsequently would have had more support from the people.
The position has been exacerbated by this process of stealth. I quote but one example. It came to us on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) spoke earlier in the debate. We owe a great deal to his diligence and vigilance on that Committee in scrutinising Statutory Instruments. Heaven help us if the Bill goes through in its present form without the proper constraints on the Executive.
In January of this year, the Select Committee issued a report criticising Ministers for an unexpected use of the powers because they had amended the horse-breeding rules by making metric measurements compulsory on forms from the owners of stallions applying for licences. They change the normal method of measuring animals by hands and inches. We took the view that this conflicted with the obligations under the 1963 Weights and Measures Act to ensure that imperial measurements were not rendered unlawful. To my great surprise, in the subsequent debate on 7th July the Minister said that he would like to see certain changes in the directive. He said that he would like to see the hands for measuring horses moved from Chapter B to Chapter C, putting off the change from 1977 to 1979.
All the time we have had these Statutory Instruments creeping up and, encircling us so that, when it came to the crunch, it would be hard to make any other decision than that we should go ahead with metrication. I accept that we have gone so far and that we cannot say "No" to further metrication. But I think that we should henceforth proceed voluntarily and do without the Metrication Board.
Let commerce proceed if it wishes. Let education proceed, as it is doing. Incidentally, I think it is sheer nonsense to say that children have learned no other system. It may be that the metric system dominates their education, but it is nonsense to suggest that children are leaving school not knowing what a pint of milk is, what a mile is or what a quarter of a pound of sweets is. I suspect that children in our schools are still studying a great deal of our traditional imperial measurements. If they are not, it is a dreadful condemnation of our system of education.
I make one further appeal. Let us have clarity. Let us give certainty to the British people. Let us say that we have no intention of abolishing the mile on our roads, of getting rid of the familiar pint and even of going metric on measured goods in the greengrocer's shop. Here I part company from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). There is no need for it. It does not inhibit our efficiency. It does not prevent our trade. It preserves those traditional landmarks which are essential if we are to have proper consumer understanding of goods on sale.
The Minister said that we should be going metric in respect of all these items. We shall have metric measurements on our roads. We shall go over to kilometres. All that he has said at the moment is "Not yet". I do not think that that message has sunk through to the British people. If it had done, we should have been deluged with representations and this Chamber, instead of being pathetically empty, would have been full. The debate would perhaps have been more dramatic.
I hope that my right hon. Friend's amendment will be carried tonight with strong support on this side at least. The British people will be well served if the amendment is carried.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I agree with only the final sentence of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). I am a director of a small furnishing company and I object to metrication.
Everyone in the House knows that I am a modest, quiet sort of chap, but it was because of a question which was asked by one of my constituents, a Mrs. Swinhoe-Phelan, at a meeting in Pinner during the 1970 General Election campaign that the two debates we have had in the House on metrication took place. Mrs. Swinhoe-Phelan asked me for my views on metrication, and I gave her a full and accurate statement of the state of decimalisation. I was not aware of the plans which had been devised by the right hon. Gentleman who I wish was the second Viscount Stansgate. I promised that I would raise the matter of metrication on the Adjournment of the House


and, if necessary, force a Division. Since then, I believe that there has been a move in Harrow to plan a small memorial to Mrs. Swinhoe-Phelan and myself standing holding hands for having saved the pint and saved the mile.
I was horrified to have doubts about saving both the pint and the mile put in my mind by the Minister this afternoon. I thought that the pint of milk, the draught pint, and the mile for British roads were absolutely sacrosanct, and I am not satisfied with the undertaking that the Minister has given about the mile.
I was distressed to hear that there is even a discussion going on about changing road signs. I understood from the Sunday papers that this was being done because the "3" in "30" had a square top instead of a round top, not because the signs were being changed to kilometres.
I thought that this Bill was designed to encourage exports, but we cannot encourage exports of miles on British roads. Nor can we export, without difficulty, pints of beer drawn in the draught manner from a British pub. Even if we managed to get export orders for it, it would be likely to be spilt before we could sell it in Calais. It is these differences about life in England which are important to our tourist trade. People come here to find something different. "Vive la difference", as we say when we arrive in France. If tourists coming here have to ask for half a litre of Eurogas or some such from a British pub, they will not want to come here and the number of visitors from abroad will go down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham mentioned the term "hand" in horse breeding. What is the point of altering this measurement of horses? It has a prestigious atmosphere for Britain. At the Newmarket horse sales, for example, when people talk about hands it is known that this is a British industry. Once one starts mucking about with metres and other such measurements, no one knows where we are.
Two weeks ago I ordered a drainpipe from a local ironmonger. He telephoned my wife in rather a state and told her that I had ordered 9 ft. of piping. He said that I could not have 9 ft. because

the measurements were all metric. My wife took a guess at it and asked for three metres. The ironmonger then asked her if I wanted 2½-in. or 3½-in. diameter piping. That is how ridiculous it all is.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Ioan Evans) said that it would be easier for people to understand the metric system than the imperial system. I doubt whether he would say that if he could see the difficulties which people have in measuring things like windows 10 feet above the ground—or should I say three metres—and trying to see how many millimetres there are. The metric rulers are all being marked off in feet on the other side so that people do not make mistakes.
The whole of this could have been done voluntarily by those in industry in their own self-interest. We have already had difficulty in selling engineering goods in South American markets because we are using metric measurements and those markets are still using imperial measurements. I think I should remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is Roman imperial and not British imperial to which we are referring so that they will not be prejudiced against it on an imperialistic basis. The change-over could and should have been voluntary.
If the Minister of State starts mucking about with our miles and our pints—and I hope he has not finally mucked about with hands—I warn him that the country will rise up against him. He can do what he likes with the minimum lending rate, but he must leave our pints and miles alone or he will have a real revolt on his hands.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I had thought—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is, of course, entirely for you at your discretion to decide whom to call, but I thought that there was an informal understanding with the Chair that the Front Bench speeches would begin at 6.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am not concerned with any arrangements. I called Mr. Norman Lamont.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no wish to intervene in a dispute between two hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would point out that there is a tradition that when someone on that side of the House has spoken Mr. Speaker then calls someone on this side of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I called Mr. Norman Lamont.

Mr. Lamont: I thought I might begin by observing that it is particularly characteristic that this Government should introduce a measure which abolishes the scruple. But I would like to respond initially to the Minister's comments when he emphasised that there was a certain amount in common between the two sides of the House on this subject. We accept that where there are commercial reasons which are important, this may cause some industries to wish to go metric. We also accept in principle that when the understanding of the metric system is more widespread there will be advantages of simplicity. We also accept that eventually we shall have a predominantly metric system. That much is common between us.
Having said that, and having admitted that this is a better Bill than the one which the Government brought to the House before, I should say that we have a number of very important reservations. These are made clear in the amendment, and a number of my hon. Friends have supported it. Before dealing with the objections we have to the Bill, I want to make two points of detail and one more general one.
In the Bill there is no attempt to replace the minimum weight systems with average weight systems. The Government have said that that will happen and that if it does not happen it will be a barrier to trade. When will there be some announcement about that, and what legislation will be used to bring it forward?
My second detailed point refers to Clause 6 and is perhaps more of a Committee point. It has been mentioned by the Retail Consortium. Clause 6 deals with Community obligations upon manufacturers. It says that local authorities will be able to charge firms for certain services. It is not clear what those

services are. There is some worry about this point, and people feel that they may be charged for general consumer protection services.
We frequently say that we are moving over to a metric system—perhaps I have done it in my speech tonight—but, of course, we are not actually doing that. We are moving over to the SI system. But by no means all countries which are metric use that system. Nor is it correct to say that the SI system is a clear diamond of logic. It is a ragbag of tradeoffs between different interests and different professions, and it brings in a whole lot of measures such as the rood, the quire and the punnet. There is a lot of talk about standards and about how, when this universal system applies in a large part of the world, we shall enjoy the benefit of universal standards. But as long as we have other systems in addition to the SI system there will be differences and modifications will be needed in the export of scientific equipment and a number of industrial goods.
One other important point arises out of the SI system. The adoption of that system has led to some unease of the medical profession because such things as the measurement of blood pressure will have to be done differently. It will have to be measured in pascals and kilopascals instead of millimetres of mercury. A number of doctors and hospitals, including the cardiac unit at University College Hospital, have argued that this is an unnecessary change which has been forced on them too quickly and which could lead to accidents and to some additional risk.
We have explained about how we shall vote tonight. We have doubts about the timing of the Bill and about going beyond the requirements of the EEC directive. Above all, we doubt the need for compulsion.
It is extremely important that any approach to metrication should be based on common sense. We do not want to ram down people's throats something they do not want. It seems to me that common sense has been lacking from the way in which the whole metrication issue has been handled in recent years.
We have been submitted to a stream of propaganda. Much of it has been irrelevant and misleading. I do not believe


that people's attitudes to metrication will be changed because they are told that the British Solomon Islands have set up a metrication board. I cannot see why it matters or why we need to be told that the National Dahlia Society has decided to impose metric measurements in the judging and exhibiting of dahlias. That is hardly one of our most important export industries. Nor is it important that we should be solemnly told by the Metrication Board that John Wayne has ordered a metric bed.
On top of that, we have been submitted to a lot of rhymes put forward as a mixture of Noddy language and Maoist slogans.
We are told
The metre measures three foot three,
It's longer than a yard, you see.
As one wit suggested, an equally good rhyme, which actually scans better, is
When goods go metric prices rise.
Surprise, surprise. Surprise, surprise.
There is a serious point here. In spite of all the propaganda, the metric system is little understood. There are many misleading impressions around. In our talks with industry we found a great deal of misunderstanding and the belief that compulsion and the abolition of Section 10(10) of the 1963 Act were necessary before we could go metric. That is not true. Many people think that somehow the move to metrication is backed by law. That is quite baseless. The move is neither compulsory nor backed by law.
With such a lot of misleading propaganda around, it is hardly surprising that there should be so much fear, resistance and misunderstanding to what is involved. It is all the more understandable in the current economic situation. The move to metrication may not mean higher prices, but a lot of people believe that it will. Perhaps the reason why they believe it is that so many people moved over from the Decimal Currency Board to the Metrication Board.
Another reason is that when there are quantity changes there will be price changes. Many of the metric alternatives are larger than the imperial equivalent. In general, an article which now costs 50p, even without inflation, will go up to 55p because of the larger quantity. Most of the metric equivalents are something like 10 per cent. greater. We know

from the Price Commission's report that so many similar packs are more expensive. Therefore, I do not think that the fear that people have about price rises is quite as irrational and unjustified.
The Post Office adapted its distances for parcel and letter post to metric measurement and took the opportunity of making some hidden price rises. I do not know whether the Minister studies the columns of the New Statesman. If he does, he will know that the cost of sending that publication abroad went up by 20 per cent. when the change to metric distance was implemented.
We say, therefore, that the time for the change is not right. If the Government get the inflation rate down below 10 per cent. the time might be right, but not before that. The European Community directive has changed everything. So many of the imperial measurements could now be used for a much longer period. We do not have to review them until at least the end of the decade.
But the central issue in this debate is whether we need compulsory metrication at all. What is proposed in the Bill is totally different from what was proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). His was a permissive and voluntary approach which was based on common sense.
Of course, Labour Members have told us that the CBI, the Retail Consortium and a number of other business interests say that the Bill is necessary. That is true. They also say that metrication is in the interests of industry and is overwhelmingly in the interests of the consumer. But when they say that they give the game away. If the Bill is so overwhelmingly in the interests of consumers, industry would not be so frightened of voluntary metrication. The CBI would not need to ask for metrication. The truth is that industry does not want to carry the responsibility for going metric which it knows to be unpopular. We believe that people should have the choice and the freedom.
I saw Lady White in a television debate in metrication. When confronted with the fact that carpet sales had slumped by 30 per cent. in stores which had gone metric, she said that they could not compete with the small shops selling imperial


units. Why should not shops continue to sell imperial units? Why should not industry be able to continue to compete? Why should not consumers be able to continue to exercise choice?
It is perfectly possible to advance metrication on a voluntary basis. We always hear rather sneering references in these debates to the Yemen and Brunei but not many mentions of the United States, where progress towards metrication is entirely on a voluntary basis. Congress has had the opportunity to vote on metrication and has slung it out twice. The Executive has been forced to take it back. Metrication there is now continuing on a voluntary basis, and that is how it ought to continue here.
There is no need for compulsion and there are some areas where compulsion would be positively harmful. We do not want compulsory metrication in the mail order business or for weighed-out foods. The Retail Consortium does not want that either.
Above all, we do not want unnecessary change. I support much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) said. Land cannot be exported, so why are we to be compelled to measure it in hectares? We do not export thermometers, so why must we measure all temperatures in centigrade? Why alter road signs and speedometers on cars'? Why must we be compelled to give measurements in centimetres on our passport applications? I trust that no one will be refused a passport for not complying with that requirement.
It is no good the Minister saying that he has no intention of doing such things in the near future. We have heard that before. If there is no such intention, why do the Government have to take the powers in this Bill? We think that it is not necessary to have them.
It is said that we need metrication for our exports, but the United States, one of our largest markets, will remain an imperial measure country for at least 10 years. The use of imperial measures in this country does not stop other nations from exporting their goods here. Indeed, they seem embarrassingly good at it.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said that the education system was increasingly making schoolchildren grow up in a metric world. There are

15 million children who know the metric system but 40 million people who have grown up in a world of imperial measurements. We are talking about a slight inconvenience to schoolchildren but a massive inconvenience to the rest of the population.
In a recent Gallup Poll survey, people were asked whether they knew the imperial equivalent of 400 grammes. A total of 52 per cent. said they did not know, and of the 48 per cent. who said that they did know two-thirds gave the wrong answer. One significant point about the results was that the youngest age group was even worse than the older groups. So much for the myth that young people are waiting with open hearts and clear heads for the metric world to advance upon them.
We are told that consumers will be faced with two sets of standards, but the Minister undermined any weight this argument might have when he said that he would not remove imperial alternatives for specified quantities. We shall have two-size packs for many years unless the Minister did not mean what he said at the beginning of his speech. We say that it is not necessary for the Government to take these powers of compulsion. Public opinion remains deeply sceptical.
This is not an issue to be decided by the Retail Consortium or the CBI. It has to be decided by Parliament, and by the people through their Members of Parliament. The Government are putting forward a plan which is neat and tidy but which is tyrannical. The real world is messy; it does not correspond with the world of planners, civil servants, or the sort of people who sit on boards.
Let us avoid ramming things down people's throats and, above all, give people a choice in this matter. For that reason, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.

6.45 p,m.

Mr. John Fraser: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) made an amusing speech—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It was a very good speech.

Mr. Fraser: It was an amusing and good speech. Now perhaps the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) will keep quiet. He has not been present for most of the debate.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames fell into the same error as his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) in failing to act responsibly over a matter which is a problem to this country and in taking what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) described as an opportunist attitude towards the change to metrication. The Opposition are in favour of metrication in principle, but wish to deny the means to achieve it.
This is irresponsible because virtually every hon. Member opposite voted for the European Communities Bill knowing that they were supporting an obligation to phase out imperial units in this country. There was just one small escape clause. Now they congratulate me on amending the directive which they undertook to observe. The Opposition are runnning away from their responsibilities when, having accepted metrication in the Treaty of Accession, they now attempt to deny the means of achieving it. I do not believe that the Opposition regarded metrication as being foisted upon them by Europe. They reached the decision on its merits and followed the lead of the previous Labour Government. They are neglecting their responsibilities and flying in the face of reality in attempting to deny the opportunity to plan for the orderly completion of the metrication process.
I can tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames, who asked about the average weight system, that we shall have it when the working party set up to consider this matter reports and the Government have considered its findings. Ultimately, another Weights and Measures Bill will be necessary, but I do not think that it will be brought forward next year.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames also asked about Clause 6. It is concerned with the fees incurred by traders and manufacturers who submit measuring instruments for marking as being in accordance with EEC requirements. The clause is not concerned with the routine retail checks.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) may rest assured that for as far ahead as I can see, and probably for time immemorial, he will be able to have his pint of milk and drink his pint of draught bitter. For a long time ahead he will also be able to calculate road distances in miles. I told the House recently that I do not regard road signs or speed limits as a priority for metrication. They are not the subject of this Bill.
I believe that metrication is unavoidable. Let me give the House two quotes. The first is
The view of most consumer organisations and interested bodies coincides almost as exactly with the views of Macbeth:
'If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly:
The other is:
Metrication would provide a golden opportunity to move towards standardised or prescribed quantities which are already quite familiar to many people who have shopped in Europe."—[Official Report, 24th July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 1474–75.]
Those are not my words. They were all spoken by the hon. Member for Gloucester in a debate on metrication. On BBC radio this morning the hon. Lady said that eventually we should have to go metric.
I agree with her judgment about the inevitability of the situation. We have a common view that the principle of metrication is not in doubt. We have an agreed view that metrication should be used as far as possible to achieve standardisation of weights and products—[Interruption.]—I sometimes agree with the hon. Lady even when she does not agree with herself. I shall take it on my own shoulders and say that it is right to link metrication to the standardisation of products. I gave some examples in the speech with which I opened the debate.
The hon. Lady has accused us of moving at too great a speed. How can we be accused of that when the present level of metrication has proceeded on a voluntary basis? I do not take the arrogant view that we can assume that metrication can be rammed down people's throats. I have enough political sense to know that that is not possible and that one has to make a judgment


about how quickly to proceed. I do not believe that it should be done very quickly. We have to take the general public along with us and to provide for education and information. I do not think one can have a rapid process of change.
The hon. Lady first attacked the Government by saying that we were moving too quickly. She then said that we were taking unacceptable sweeping powers. She then complained about uncertainty in industry and among retailers about the pace of change. She said that they should be given some certainty and that I should lay down a firm timetable to be achieved on a voluntary basis. She must understand the realities of this world. It is not possible in practice to lay down a voluntary timetable whether for the conversion of petrol pumps, weighing machines or anything else. It is madness to suggest such a course.
The reason we want this Bill and the reason we want these powers is to provide a framework within which these matters can be planned. I believe that our objectives are the same—namely, to prepare for change but not to ram it down people's throats. Every section of industry—and this applies to comments made by the CBI, the Food Manufacturers' Federation, and the Retail Consortium—has decided that a movement to metrication without some kind of legal framework and orderly transition from one system to the other is impossible. This Bill will give manufacturers and industry in general, after due consultation, the feeling that they can cope with the problem of the change to metrication. The power to make orders is an essential precondition and nobody who examines the matter seriously can avoid that conclusion.
The hon. Lady instanced the question of imports of prepacked goods. The Conservative Government, when signing the Treaty of Accession, committed this country to open access to metric packs—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester keeps murmuring like a pigeon in Trafalgar Square, but she seems to have forgotten that it was her own party who took the United Kingdom into the EEC by signing the Treaty of Accession.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to misrepresent what I said. I said that the commitment to let these goods into the country in metric quantities did not matter at all.

Mr. Fraser: I am grateful for that help. I think the hon. Lady said that very few of these goods are imported. I must point out that, in 1975, 38 per cent. of butter imports were prepacked from the EEC. Most other butter imports, including those from New Zealand and other non-EEC countries, were not pre-packed. Incidentally, New Zealand also is turning to a metric system.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) also spoke of sweeping powers. He asked whether many of the important powers in the Bill should be exercised by negative or affirmative order. I assure him that the important powers proposed in Clauses 1 and 2 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. If he looks at Clause 2(3)(c), at the bottom of page 4 of the Bill dealing with parliamentary control of orders, he will see that the procedure in the 1963 Act is preserved. If he feels that there is any doubt about the situation I shall examine the proposition again. The Government intend to see that important orders made under the Bill will be subject to affirmative consent of the House of Commons.
The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester thought that the time available for orders to be debated by the House was neither convenient nor adequate. That is a sphere of influence that falls within the province of people outside the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. However, the Government are always ready to consider allowing extra time for orders attracting special interest. I understand the hon. Lady's concern. I agree that it is important that phasing out or cut-off orders should not be debated late at night. I shall pay full regard to those matters.
Some hon. Members mentioned the subject of cost. It is impossible to give a firm estimate of the cost of going metric. The Conservatives, in their 1972 White Paper, Command 4880, said:
There have been several unofficial estimates of the global cost of metrication never supported by any statistical evidence. No well-founded estimate exists or could exist.


The White Paper continued:
None of the countries which has changed to the metric system, or decided to do so in recent years, has made an estimate of the total cost of change…
If we examine some of the individual costs of change we note that the nationalised industries calculate the cost of metrication to be about 0·07 per cent. of turnover per year for a period of three years.

Hon. Members: Which nationalised industry?

Mr. Fraser: That was the British Steel Corporation. Engineering firms calculated that it would involve a figure of 1 per cent. of annual turnover for a period of three years, but in the event they found that the actual cost was nearer a figure of 0·5 per cent. of annual turnover.
It is difficult to estimate the cost of the changeover. I do not deny that it is a matter of some importance to retailers, but we have also to think of the cost to this country in the long run of not going over to a metric system. I refer to cost

in terms of our children, our industry and so on.

The Government withdrew their first Bill because there was a clear need to discuss the matter further. I am grateful for what was said about the nature of those discussions and improvements to the Bill. I have spoken to almost every hon. Member in the House who has expressed a desire to talk to me over these matters. I am sorry that other hon. Members who are now critical of the situation did not take that opportunity to discuss these matters with me. I make no complaint about the requirements of outside organisations in terms of a further dialogue. We have now had that dialogue, and I believe that it has improved the Bill. I believe that we have the overwhelming support of the consumer protection movement, and I ask the House responsibly to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill and to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 194.

Division No. 325.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jessel, Toby


Alison, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jopling, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Forman, Nigel
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Baker, Kenneth
Fox, Marcus
Kershaw, Anthony


Beith, A. J.
Fry, Peter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bitten, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Knox, David


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lamont, Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Brotherton, Michael
Gorst, John
Lawson, Nigel


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Carlisle, Mark
Gray, Hamish
Loveridge, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian
Luce, Richard


Churchill, W. S.
Hall, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McCrindle, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macfarlane, Neil


Clegg, Walter
Hannam, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Cockcroft, John
Havers, Sir Michael
Marten, Neil


Cope, John
Hawkins, Paul
Maude, Angus


Cormack, Patrick
Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray


Corrie, John
Hicks, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Mayhew, Patrick


Crowder, F. P.
Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hordern, Peter
Mills, Peter


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Howell, David (Guildford)
Miscampbell, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Moate, Roger


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Molyneaux, James


Durant, Tony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Montgomery, Fergus


Elliott, Sir William
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Emery, Peter
Hurd, Douglas
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan, Geraint


Fell, Anthony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Finsberg, Geoffrey
James, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)




Mudd, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Tebbit, Norman


Neave, Airey
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Neubert, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Newton, Tony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Nott, John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Page, John (Harrow West)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Parkinson, Cecil
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Pattie, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John


Penhaligon, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Jerry


Percival, Ian
Spence, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Pink, R. Bonner
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stanbrook, Ivor



Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J
Mr. Fred Silvester and


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Mr. Carol Mather.


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Archer, Peter
George, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Atkinson, Norman
Golding, John
Noble, Mike


Burnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gould, Bryan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bates, Alf
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ovenden, John


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Padley, Walter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Boardman, H.
Hardy, Peter
Park, George


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Perry, Ernest


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hatton, Frank
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Radice, Giles


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Horam, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Buchanan, Richard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, J. W.


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Rose, Paul B.


Clemitson, Ivor
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rowlands, Ted


Conen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Sandelson, Neville


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sedgemore, Brian


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
John, Brynmor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stoddart, David


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Hugh
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tierney, Sydney


Edge, Geoff
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tinn, James


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Ennals, David
McNamara, Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Madden, Max
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, John (Newton)
Magee, Bryan
Ward, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Watkins, David


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wellbeloved, James


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Forrester, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
White, James (Pollok)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Freud, Clement
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)







Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Woodall, Alec



Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Wriggiesworth, Ian
Mr. Ted Graham and


Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mr. James Hamilton

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on Second or Third reading): —

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 21.

Division No. 326.]
AYES
[7.12 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Gilbert, Dr John
Padley, Walter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Golding, John
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Gould, Bryan
Park, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parker, John


Bates, Alf
Grant, John (Islington C)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bean, R. E.
Grocott, Bruce
Penhaligon, David


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Perry, Ernest


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Boardman, H.
Harper, Joseph
Price, William (Rugby)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Radice, Giles


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Horam, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rose, Paul B.


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Huckfield, Les
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rowlands, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sandelson, Neville


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Scott, Nicholas


Cartwright, John
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Janner, Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Small, William


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spearing, Nigel


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Judd, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Stoddart, David


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Stott, Roger


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Cryer, Bob
Lamborn, Harry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davidson, Arthur
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lomas, Kenneth
Tierney, Sydney


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Luard, Evan
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Doig, Peter
McCartney, Hugh
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ward, Michael


Eadie, Alex
MacKenzie, Gregor
Watkins, David


Edge, Geoff
Maclennan, Robert
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McNamara, Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


English, Michael
Magee, Bryan
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ennals, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
White, James (Pollok)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marquand, David
Whitlock, William


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Forrester, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Woodall, Alec


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Freeson, Reginald
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick



Freud, Clement
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Ovenden, John
Mr Ted Graham.


George, Bruce






NOES


Beith, A. J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Maynard, Miss Joan


Brotherton, Michael
Lamond, James
Moate, Roger


Fell, Anthony
Lawson, Nigel
Molyneaux, James


Heffer, Eric S.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Morgan, Geraint


Hooson, Emlyn
Marten, Neil
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch




Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Torney, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rooker, J. W.
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Max Madden.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I wish to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and other hon. Members.

Clause 5

AMENDMENT OF THE DEED OF UNION

7.22 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at end insert:—
'(3) In the event of there being any amendment made to the Deed of Union whereby the doctrinal standards as they existed at the passing of this Act are affected such amendment shall not prevent any minister, deaconess or local preacher ordained or admitted to such office in the church before the passing of this Act from preaching, expounding or otherwise maintaining the doctrinal standards as they existed at the passing of this Act'.
The words of the amendment are a transitional conscience clause. That is what we are seeking to insert into the Bill, for reasons which I shall explain. There is no attempt on the part of those of us responsible for the amendment to block the Bill or to oppose the Bill as a whole, as will be apparent from the fact that the blocking motion which we had tabled, for procedural reasons, has not been proceeded with.
We are dealing with a quite specific point in a Bill which has had a more contentious passage than the promoters expected. It is right that Private Bills in this House, and the procedures for dealing with them, should not be a rubber stamp for approving the wishes of the promoters of such Bills. The proce-

dures are designed to afford some protection for the various interests and views involved in private legislation. Over the years many of the Churches have had cause to seek the help of this House in enacting legislation enshrining the terms on which their property was held, and other relevant matters. That is the position of the Methodist Church.
There is Methodist Church legislation on the statute book now because Methodists asked for it. Now Methodists seek to amend it. There is some controversy between Methodists about how far that amendment should go, and it is for that reason that there has been some discussion. The aspect we are now looking at relates solely to the doctrinal provisions of the Bill—those provisions for changing doctrine.
I should explain the background to this. At first sight it seems a strange proposition that Parliament should be in any way involved with the doctrines of a free Church. But Parliament never made the choice to be involved or sought to determine what Methodist doctrine was. It was called in, so to speak, as the referee. When the three main strands of Methodism united in 1929 they specifically asked Parliament to include in the Bill which they then promoted the provision that the doctrinal statement of the Methodist Church could not be altered, which meant in practice that it could not be altered unless they came to Parliament with another Bill to do so. This was a safeguard for the contracting parties which was quite specifically sought by the Methodist Church at the time. They sought from Parliament the rôle of guarantor. It is a rôle that has been exercised entirely passively by Parliament ever since.
Most people assumed that Parliament would never again find itself considering the matter unless and until some change in doctrine was sought. But the Methodist Church leaders have taken a different view. They have now decided that they wish to remove the guarantee, although they say quite clearly, and I accept their word, that they have no intention of changing the doctrine. They simply wish to remove the safeguard


and limitation and to have instead a purely internal procedure.
I do not believe that Parliament can contemplate removing that safeguard without first considering the position of those affected. That is the duty which Parliament owes to all the parties who contest, or become involved in arguments about, Private Bills. We must see that the various interests involved are properly considered. I emphasise that Parliament ought to have no wish to concern itself with what Methodist doctrine is or ought to be. That has nothing to do with this place and it is not what the 1929 Act envisaged. Parliament's rôle was simply that of guarantor or referee in a settlement made between various parties.
However, the responsibility of Parliament to look carefully at the safeguards and what replaces them remains whether we think Methodists were right or wrong to involve Parliament in this way in the first place. For my part, if I had been around in 1929 I do not think that I would have favoured the inclusion of the original provisions in the Bill. I would have been one of those who opposed the inclusion of a doctrinal statement in unalterable form in the Deed of Union to which Parliament gave its seal of approval. That is not the issue now. The issue now is that that having been the case over a long period of years, that safeguard having existed and been given to the various parties, can it be taken away without some consideration at least of the position of those who would be affected?

Mr. Fred Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in all probability the Deed of Union, as an attempt to bring together sections of the Methodist Movement that differed widely in concept, used Parliament as a catalyst, and that Parliament has the unenviable task of possibly being called in as an arbitrator in doctrinal matters unless the situation is changed?

Mr. Beith: I am glad to hear the hon. Member's contribution, because I know how much time he has devoted to the Bill and the great service that he rendered in Committee. I would change his analogy. I think that the contracting parties used Parliament not as a catalyst but as a guarantor. That is an important difference and an important concept in

present ecumenical discussions, because situations will arise on other occasions when Churches and denominations, drawing together, will seek agreement and will then come to Parliament seeking to enshrine that agreement in legislation, so that the property of the various contracting Churches can be safeguarded and put on some common settlement.
Such parties will want some assurance that Parliament will not in future wipe away such safeguards without looking carefully at what it is doing and making sure that it is being fair to all the parties. The 1929 situation could return. We would be doing a disservice in our rôle as guarantor to that extent if we gave the impression that Parliament tossed these things lightly aside. Such an impression was not left by the Committee proceedings and I do not think it will be left tonight if the House considers carefully and fairly the terms of my amendment.
It is quite immaterial for the purposes of my argument in what direction any future doctrinal change may go. We do not know which section of the Church may consider itself adversely affected. We do not know whether—to use political terms which have a theologically different significance—the change will be in a conservative or liberal direction. We do not know who will be affected, whether a large or small minority. That is immaterial. The issue is what safeguard, if any, is required and how can it be provided?
The specific purpose of this amendment is not to deny in future to the Methodist Conference the ability, under special procedures, to change its doctrinal statement. It is not to deny to it what its leaders are now seeking—the removal of the old safeguard and freedom to make doctrinal changes by means of an internal procedure. The Committee on which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) served made a significant amendment to the procedure and sought to ensure that discussion went down to the level of the local church. We must be grateful to the Committee for that sensible and constructive change. We do not seek to deny that power to Methodism, we seek simply to provide a transitional protection for those people, necessarily a diminishing number, who accepted an office with the expectation that the old safeguard was there.
7.30 p.m.
Under the amendment people who come into the Methodist Church and its ministry as preachers, whether local preaches, deaconesses or ministers, would have the safeguard in future years that, having come in before the passing of this measure, they could continue to preach the doctrinal statement which they believed would be safeguarded for all time. That would not apply to people who came into such an office after this measure was passed. They would know perfectly well that the old safeguard did not apply. Under the new provisions the doctrinal statement could be changed by the procedure that I have just mentioned. They would enter in the full knowledge of what could happen if the doctrine were eventually changed. Those whom came in prior to this date, believing that the doctrinal statement was unalterable without recourse to Parliament, would be able, by this amendment, to continue to preach the old doctrinal statement for the remainder of their working lives. The protection is confined to those coming in prior to this date and to those who preach—the ministers, deaconesses or the local preachers.
In two out of every three cases, let us remember, it is the livelihood of people which is at stake as well as their conscience and desire to preach the doctrine which they were ordained to preach. In the case of the minister and the deaconess it is their livelihood and ability to remain in the calling. The minister has made it his employment, upon which he and his family depend for their living. In this context it is important to make something very clear to hon. Members who may not be quite so familiar with the provisions of the Bill as some of us are. The Methodist Church has rather more rigorous rules than most Churches about adhering and preaching to the doctrinal standards and the doctrinal statement. The rules of Methodism are distinctly firmer than any other free Church that I know. I know of no free Church which has provisions comparable to those included in the Bill and which reflect the provisions in this Methodist legislation.
I refer in particular to Schedule 2, paragraph 14(3) of which contains an obligation on the managing trustees of any Methodist property, in that he

shall not permit any person, at any service or meeting for religious worship held at or in any part of any premises comprised in the property, so as to preach or expound God's Holy Word or perform any act as to deny or repudiate the doctrinal standards.
We are talking about the doctrinal standards which up until this date have been totally safeguarded. The trustees have no choice. They have an obligation to prevent anyone from rising in the pulpit, or at the Sunday school superintendent's desk, or anywhere else in those premises, and preaching anything which denies or repudiates the new doctrinal standard. Their obligation in such a case would be quite clear. They would be failing in their duty if they did not take steps to prevent anyone from preaching or expounding in such a way as to repudiate the new doctrinal standard.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Before the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Methodist Church is too authoritarian, can he give any information about the number of occasions over the past five, 10 or 20 years where the situation he described has happened in practice?

Mr. Beith: The doctrinal standards have not been changed throughout this period. Parliament is now looking to what would happen in a quite new situation, which may well be hypothetical. It may well be that trustees in a number of places would feel able to preserve the provisions of the Bill, but Parliament must face the Bill as a whole. If one part of the Bill depends wholly on nonobservance, I really do not think this House would be right in accepting it. That is the implication of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He tempts me to say that the Methodist Church is authoritarian. I think that in this respect it has an authoritarian aspect to it. It is in that particular light that one must judge these provisions.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Surely that is only a restriction. If doctrinal standards are clearly, carefully and precisely laid down—in fact, they have not been—the interpretation of Wesley's teachings and everything which came afterwards is a wide one, and therefore it is not a great restriction, even as expressed in the clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Beith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me to answer the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr.


Ogden). The present doctrinal statement is a reasonably wide one, in one sense, in that it refers to Wesley's sermons and notes on the New Testament and indicates limitations and how they are to be interpreted. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a situation in which a quite new doctrinal statement could be introduced—one which might be extremely precise, narrow and definite. That is the crux of what we are discussing now. What would happen under a different doctrinal standard if there were ministers who were quite happy to preach under the old doctrinal standard but were unhappy about the new one? That is the situation to which Parliament must address itself.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Should that question arise it would be a matter for the Conference to decide. That is democracy upholding the rule of law.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman must realise that one of the reasons why the Methodist Churches did not feel happy in 1929 to give Conference unrestricted and unfettered jurisdiction in this respect was that they feared that minorities would be deprived. They were not happy to leave the power entirely to Conference in this respect.
I hope that those hon. Members who wish to intervene will speak in the debate, because I would much prefer to hear their arguments in that way.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: It seems to me that this is something of a takeover bid by the Liberal Party in respect of the Methodist Church. I am a Methodist as much as anyone, but this issue is not doctrinal. There are many Methodist churches in my constituency of Huddersfield and, indeed, in Colne Valley, which is represented by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not consider this matter in any doctrinal spirit. However, I am prepared to consider the amendments that have been put forward. I think the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is wrong, but nevertheless I am prepared to listen to him.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's guidance and for his willingness to listen. I hope that he will no

more attribute a Liberal Party takeover of the Methodist Church to the participation of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) in this debate, or the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who would not wish to be included in that description, than seek to evince some Labour takeover of the Methodist Church by the presence of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) in moving the Bill itself. I do not impute that and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to do so.
There is some difference between the Methodist Church and other denominations in one respect; adherence to the doctrinal standards is enjoined in various ways. Every local preacher's meeting has on its agenda the question whether each local preacher believes and preaches the Church's doctrine and nothing contrary to it. There is a strain in Methodist tradition—an order that places the responsibility on the Church to ensure that its preachers comply with the doctrinal standards. I am not discussing whether that should or should not be the case, but we must consider the position of ministers, local preachers or deaconesses who find that they are prohibited from adhering to the doctrinal standards which were thought to be unalterable at the time they entered the ministry.
A situation that we would all wish to avoid is one in which anyone could be threatened, or considered to be threatened, with loss of the right to preach and loss of livelihood for preaching the very doctrine that he was ordained to preach, and which he believed at the time could not be altered without further recourse to Parliament. I believe that no one in the Methodist membership has the slightest intention of bringing that situation about. I hope he would have no such intention. But Parliament cannot simply look at what those now holding office might say; it must look at what the provisions of the Bill would be, and how they might be interpreted in practice in a variety of circumstances.
The amendment that we have put forward does not provide the only way in which this problem can be met, but it is probably one that would enjoy the widest agreement. There are alternatives. It has been suggested that the way to deal with this is to make provision for redun-


dancy and the transferring of pensions for those who may lose their livelihood. I had a letter from one minister who said that he was perfectly happy as long as he knew that his pension rights were safeguarded if he were required to leave the Methodist ministry in these circumstances. But the bulk of the people to whom I have talked would wish to see a safeguarding of the right to continue to preach the doctrine that they were ordained to preach.
We have been told that no change of doctrine is intended, and that there is no need to worry. I am prepared to believe that assurance, but that does not apply to everyone. Many people who have written to me believe that there are plans to change the doctrine. However, that is immaterial, as the legislation will outlive those who give the assurance.
If no change in the doctrine is made for many years, there is no reason to resist the amendment. I am not quite sure why the promoters wish to do so. If they have no intention to change and if they see no prospect of its occurring, the terms of the amendment will not apply. The amendment will not cause them the slightest inconvenience. This measure will remain as some assurance for those who feel threatened by the position as they now see it.
The amendment is not intended to have and would not have the effect of blocking the Bill or of denying to Methodism the power to change its doctrine in terms of new procedure. It would not involve recourse to Parliament. It is a necessary provision. The Methodist Church asked Parliament to guarantee its doctrinal statement and it is the Methodist leadership that has decided to change that situation.
Parliament has a certain obligation in these circumstances to see that the interests of all those concerned are properly safeguarded. That is why there is a need to put in a transitional conscience clause of this sort. I believe that those who came in with an assurance that the doctrinal statement was unalterable are entitled to continue to preach that unaltered doctrine for the rest of their working and preaching lives. I hope that Parliament will feel it right to ensure that this provision is included.

7.45 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for the brief and fair way in which he presented the amendment. The difficulty about the amendment is that it deals with a completely hypothetical situation. I think that the hon. Gentleman accepts that position. Therefore, it is difficult to consider the merits or demerits of the amendment. It is difficult at this stage to foresee the possible circumstances in which it might be implemented.
Although it is one of the purposes of the Methodist Church Bill that there should no longer be entrenchment of doctrine for the Methodist Church—namely, entrenched by Act of Parliament—there are now no defined intentions on the part of the Methodist. Conference to bring about any changes in the doctrinal standards as they are embodied in the Deed of Union of 1932.
Let us suppose that after a period such proposals were brought forward to change the doctrinal standards. In that event, the procedure laid down within the Bill would have to be admitted. That would require, first, the Methodist Conference voting in favour of the proposed changes by a majority of not less than 75 per cent. In the course of the following two years the issues would be referred to all the lower courts of the Church—namely, all district synods at home and overseas—and all the circuit meetings. Further, as a result of the amendment which was made by the Committee, there would also have to be consideration by church meetings.
I think that the promoters are thoroughly happy with that situation. After the period of consultation at all levels of the Church over two years, the same issue would return to the Methodist Conference. It would come into force only if the Conference again agreed by a majority of 75 per cent. It is clear that any changes such as the amendment might refer to can only come about after thorough discussion and consultation at all levels of the Methodist Church.
The amendment is suggesting that after all that process, which I can only regard as an extremely democratic one, any dissident members of the Church who did


not accept the changes of doctrine that had come about should still have the right to preach, expound and maintain the doctrines that now exist, such dissidents being limited to those who held office at the time of the enactment of the Bill. After all the due processes of consultation by the Methodist Church in an attempt to come to a decision about an important change in its doctrinal standards, it would seem strange to me that when the change came it could be ignored by those who did not agree with it.
That effectively is what the amendment is asking—namely, that we play the game but that when the whistle is blown at the end, when the result is known and the decision is reached, people can still carry on as if they did not agree with it. That seems to be a total undermining of the idea of a united church.
If the Methodist Church is to be a corporate body and to have a set standard of doctrine, surely it is in the essence of a church that it should have a common standard of doctrine accepted by all those within it who expound, preach and maintain that doctrine. It is true that within Methodism already there is a wide measure of interpretation of the doctrinal standards set out in the Deed of Union. One of the curious features of the debate is that it is not really in touch with what Methodism is like. In the circuits and in the chapels that I see as I go around conducting services, I know that there are a multitude of different views on doctrine. One of the embarrassments in the Methodist Church at times is that in circuits where they are short of preachers they have to import people from other denominations to conduct services. Some of the doctrines that are expounded from Methodist pulpits in those circumstances can be very strange.
Anyone who thinks, as evidently the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed does, that somehow there is a rigorous police force within Methodism which ensures that standards are observed throughout the country is totally out of touch with the life of Methodism. The Church does not work like that. It is a voluntary organisation. At this time, like all the Christian Churches, it is battling against the tide. In a set of circumstances in which it is increasingly difficult to keep the life of the Church at its former

strength, no one in it can afford to lay down the law on what should and should not be preached.
There is wide interpretations within Methodism of the doctrinal standards set out in the Deed of Union.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman has painted a vivid picture—no doubt in many parts of the country an accurate one—of a state of near anarchy that exists in Methodist circuits in which the regulations that are enshrined within the Methodist Church Act are not enforced. If that be so, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that that will continue, why is there any need to resort to legislation if there is no enforcement?

Dr. Marshall: That is probably a true statement—namely, that there is no need to resort to legislation, and certainly not in the form of the amendment. Indeed, the amendment is totally unnecessary. The reason why entrenched doctrine should be ended is that it seems anomalous that a free church should be under parliamentary control as regards its own doctrinal standards. The amendment, if carried, would be a vestigial form of that entrenchment. It would be maintaining a form of parliamentary control over the doctrinal standards observed within the Church, at least by some members of the Church.
Although I do not think that, whatever happens to it, the amendment would make a great deal of difference, on balance if we are to end the entrenched doctrine we should remove all question of parliamentary restriction on the standards that are observed within the Church.
The doctrinal standards of Methodism as laid down in the Deed of Union are not, as some hon. Members might think from the debate and from the wording of the amendment, a list such as the 39 Articles—for example: "1. Thou shalt observe the truth of such and such; 2. Thou shalt not believe in the infallibility of the Pope." There is no list, and no sudden changes can come about.
I quote from Clause 30 of the Deed of Union 1932 to give the feel of it:
The Methodist Church claims and cherishes its place in the Holy Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ. It rejoices in the inheritance of the Apostolic Faith and loyally accepts the fundamental principles of the historic creeds and of the Protestant Reformation. It ever remembers that in the Providence


of God Methodism was raised up to spread Scriptural Holiness through the land by the proclamation of the Evangelical Faith and declares its unfaltering resolve to be true to its Divinely appointed mission.
Clause 30 continues in the same vein. There is a breadth of interpretation. There is no recourse to the application of a set of rules like a catchism which everyone must repeat and observe from one Sunday to the next.
It is completely out of touch with the whole ethos of Methodism—which is a fellowship of people of which there is one head. Christ himself—to think that we can have a legalistic bandying about of words which will safeguard the doctrinal standards of individual members. The church does not work like that.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: That is how the Church should work, and the Methodist Church often does work as a fellowship, but we should not be having this debate on consultation and so on if it worked out in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

Dr. Marshall: My hon. Friend may hold that view. It is a shame that so many of these issues should have been raised within the parliamentary procedure, but I recognise the right of all hon. Members and their constituents to make these points. The Methodist Church has not come particularly well out of the process of the Bill and the various considerations raised on both sides. Whatever happens with the Bill, however, the future of the Methodist Church will be very different and there will be a much fuller measure of consultation on similar matters in the future than there has been in the past.
It will not be the end of the day if the amendment is carried. On the other hand, there is no need for it. We do not need unnecessary legislation. There is no reason for inserting this clause in the Bill, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is unnecessary.

Mr. Paul Dean: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) because I, too, rise to support the Bill and to speak against the amendment. As a member of the Church of England, it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to put detailed arguments against the amendment. In-

deed, they have already been put forward more effectively by the hon. Gentleman.
I should like to put to the House two general points which lead me to the conclusion that the amendment is not desirable and not in keeping with the spirit of the times. First, we are in the midst of what might be called a quiet revolution in the religious life of Britain. There are many encouraging signs. There is a growing interest in religion and the message of Christianity. The Lambeth call made 12 months ago by the Archbishop of Canterbury and supported by leaders of the other churches reverberated round the nation and received concentrated publicity which would have been undreamt of even five years previously.
It is also encouraging that the unhappy divisions of Christendom are breaking down. Suspicion and hostility between denominations are giving way to understanding and friendship. We are doing things together and even worshipping together. That does not mean that we want one lowest common denominator type of religious observance. I hope that we continue to maintain the richness and variety which is as important in religious as in other aspects of life.
It is encouraging that at long last we are recognising that we are all on the same side and that all worship the same God and, therefore, have the same unity of purpose. There is also the happy feature that church attendances are going up. There are signs that the long drift from the pew on Sundays has been halted.
With all these new and encouraging circumstances of growing interest, greater unity and growing church attendance, the churches need freedom to responce. They are rightly asking themselves how best to appeal to contemporary Britain, how to get across to those who have no recent experience of regular church-going. In these circumstances, it is no accident that all churches are experimenting with revised orders of service in modern language and the like.
Material problems hit the churches as hard as anyone else. There are the problems of inflation, the upkeep of old and extensive buildings, making the best use of a smaller number of clergy and how to pay and pension the clergy in


modern inflationary circumstances. Therefore, the churches need the maximum freedom to respond to this new religious revolution and to the material problems which they face.
My second point is that the whole trend in recent years has been towards responsible self-government for the churches, less interference by Parliament and more freedom for churches themselves to make decisions through their own constitued authority.

Mr. Beith: What the hon. Gentleman says applies particularly to the Church of England and the passing of the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that Methodism owes no debt to Parliament for its doctrines, policy or any other feature, except in so far as it has asked for it and sought its regulation to meet its own requirements of union and so on. In some senses the story is the other way round.

8 p.m.

Mr. Dean: I agree. I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall deal with it later, together with the somewhat strange situation that we are discussing a matter of this kind at all.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter and I hope that we shall continue to maintain close links between the Church and the State. We are more likely to preserve those close links if parliamentary interference is kept to a minimum. In particular, I submit that there must be strong arguments for Parliament to reject a measure sent to it by a responsible church with a particularly constituted governing body. We should be doubly cautious about matters of doctrine.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said in his speech that we were not really dealing with matters of doctrine, and I was encouraged and reassured to hear him say that he would be strongly opposed to Parliament interfering in matters of doctrine. I submit to him, however, that we would be doing that if we accepted the amendment. The amendment would be inconsistent with the Bill and with the freedom for which the Methodist Church is asking.
What would the amendment amount to in practice? Surely it would mean that

in certain circumstances the Church should have no power over doctrinal standards. As the hon. Member for Goole said, in certain circumstances some individuals would be able to ignore the doctrinal standards laid down by the duly constitutional body. I submit that that would amount to direct interference in doctrinal matters by Parliament, which the hon. Gentleman said that he did not wish to see.
It may seem strange that the Methodist Church, with its traditions and character, should be so tied down by Parliament, but we know that the explanation lies in the events leading to the union of 1932 and the 1929 Act which paved the way for the union at the request of the Methodists themselves. Surely the point today is that the Methodist Church is now asking Parliament to release her from the bonds of the 1929 Act which, she feels, are no longer appropriate. The Methodist Church has made the case, and I hope that the House will respond to it and not feel it right to impose the restrictions contained in the amendment.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: It seems that the objectors to the Bill lack faith in their own Christian adherence as they assemble at their conference. On the other hand, it seems that they have more faith in this House, consisting as it does of Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, agnostics and atheists, and that they turn to this body to safeguard their religious beliefs.
The greatest authority for the Christian religion is Jesus Christ. He gave exactly the opposite advice. He said:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's".
He did not say: "Render unto Caesar the things which are not Caesar's". But that is precisely what the Methodists did in 1929. They were wrong to introduce the Bill in one respect, but it was for the sake of expediency and to join together the three separate bodies of the Methodist Church. It was a sensible way of doing things, but, although it was sensible then, it is not necessarily right nearly half a century later. It was obviously a temporary measure to unite the Methodists, so that they could see that there was no harm in the union. Few people then thought that there was no harm in it.
The objectors seem to say that they cannot trust their fellow Christians and cannot trust their annual conference on this subject despite the fact that it recommended that it should be discussed at grass roots.
It is sad that members of the Methodist Church have so little faith in the future of Christianity that they cannot trust decisions on future doctrine to their own members. Anyone who joins a body—whether political or religious—in which he believes—should have enough faith in that body to trust that it is likely that the group of people concerned will follow the right course. Nothing has been said to us to indicate that the Methodist Conference is hell-bent on self-destruction or on destroying Christian beliefs. Therefore, why not trust that body rather than one such as this Chamber, which is not particularly religious? It seems extraordinary not to do that.
In one of the amendments the objectors suggest that somebody entering the Church when the doctrine was formulated and entrenched by the 1929 Act should he in a vested position, and that vested interests should be considered. That must be so, because if that person's conscience were affected he could leave the Church and find an outlet for his religious expression in another body, or by himself.
I remember the famous Methodist preacher and orator, the Reverend Leon Atkins. As a boy I listened to him and found him a powerful speaker. He found it difficult to accept the United Methodist Church, and turned to congregationalism. He was a great gift to the Congregational movement. Hypothetically, those people who find that the conference changes the doctrine of the Church so much that they can no longer adhere to it, can express their opinions outside. But the amendment seems to imply that because they took up a position and remuneration some time ago they should be allowed, if necessary to preach doctrines that are contrary to those laid down by the Conference of the Methodist Church. That would be an intolerable situation. If hon. Members are concerned about the vested interests of these people, surely such action here is inappropriate when we are concerned with religious bodies and the state of conscience.
When one joins an organisation, whether it be a political party or a religious denomination, surely one retains sufficient faith in one's fellow members even when that body changes its doctrine or its policies to a minor degree. I cannot envisage the Methodist Conference doing more than changing doctrine to a minor degree. In such circumstances, one surely still has enough in common with the body one has joined to stay with it. How many of us in this House have never differed with their party on something or other? Yet we believe sufficiently in the ethic of the party to stay with it. That is surely the case here.
I think that there will be very few dissenters if the Methodist Conference should change doctrine to a minor degree. Judging by the record of the Methodists, they are most disinclined to change doctrine at all—perhaps the most disinclined of all religious denominations. I have faith that the Methodist Church will continue fundamentally to teach the doctrines of John Wesley.
But if one is concerned with a vested interest, surely this amendment is not the way to defend it or to put things right for these people from the mercenary point of view. It is pretty unreasonable that it should be attempted. I have been in the teaching profession—perhaps "vocation" is the better word—and I know that when a teacher of religious instruction is engaged to teach religious studies it is possible that in his career the syllabus will be changed. He cannot for that reason say "I should have power to continue to teach my religious studies based on the original syllabus". That would be an unreasonable position for him to take up. The honourable position would be for a minister in the Methodist Church, to accept minor changes of doctrine or to leave the Church and find a place elsewhere for the expression of his religious beliefs.
We do not expect all teachers, all preachers and all ministers of the Methodist Church to die on the cross—that would be asking a lot—but we can expect them to risk the possible ending of their remuneration if they decide that they can no longer teach the Christian religion as defined by the Methodist Conference.
The Bill puts right something that was wrong in 1929, and it is particularly important to have it now because there is need for change in minor ways in every religion. We have seen changes in the Roman Catholic and other denominations without which Christianity would be harmed rather than helped. With the development of 20th century attitudes, it is possible and desirable for the Churches to adapt themselves to the genuine beliefs of some of the young people who are not satisfied with all the traditional statements of all that their Churches stand for. It is perfectly reasonable that there should be some flexibility on minor matters.
I believe that the Methodist Conference is not bent on radical changes in doctrine. That being the case, it is a healthy sign that the Methodist Church has sponsored this Bill, which has the support of the Methodist Conference. Although the Select Committee recognised that the discussions should have been more extensive at grassroots level, that will be put right, and is embodied in the Bill. I hope that the Bill will be passed, because I think that it will help Methodism and Christianity in general.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this opportunity of saying a few words. It might be felt that it is impertinent for a lay reader in the Anglican Church to speak about a Methodist Bill, but I think that it is right that I should do so, not only because I am a Member of Parliament but because I have the great privilege of speaking frequently in Methodist chapels and I was at one time a Nonconformist and I have not forgotten my early upbringing.
I support the amendment. I believe that it is of importance. Whatever people say, there is still considerable concern about these various proposals. I do not find, from my mail bag, that the fears have lessened, but I do find that many more ministers are writing to me in support of the Bill. It is interesting that in the past it was the laity who were writing to me about their concern and now it is ministers in support of the Bill who are writing to me. I leave the House to judge in that matter.
I am not prepared to block the Bill. I think that it should go forward now, although I am still not entirely happy. I believe, however, that the amendment should be carefully considered by the House, because the House has a right to consider these matters. If the Methodist Church or the Church of England brings in a Bill, we should consider it very carefully. It should not be allowed to go through on the nod because, as some people who have written to me have suggested, it is claimed that it is none of our business and that the House is composed of Christians and non-believers. If a Bill comes before the House, it is our duty to consider it carefully and to bring in amendments that we think necessary. There is no need to be embarrassed about it or to make excuses. That is what the House is about.
For example, as an Anglican, I think that it is a good thing that some years ago the House acted as a long-stop and prevented some changes in the Prayer Book. It is also true that many Methodist ministers regard the House as a referee, particularly on possible changes in doctrine. However, many ministers have the opposite view. It may well be that this is the last appearance of a Methodist Bill in this House, and that may be a good thing—I would not like to argue the point. But if it is the last time, because of what we did on the previous measure many years ago, there is all the more reason why we should look at the Bill carefully and consider the amendment.
The amendment is important to the South-West of England. One may think that strange, but it is important there because in the South-West there are various patterns or forms of Methodism. It so happens that a little place called Shebbear, in my constituency, is the home of the Bible Christian Methodists—most important people. They differ from other Methodists in their views and doctrine. They hold what are to them certain crucial doctrinal standards and views. The amendment would help to protect them. They would be able to continue to hold and to preach their views. I think that is important. I am not saying for one moment that the Methodist Church as a whole would be likely to bring in any major doctrinal changes, but there are groups of people in


Methodism who are concerned and slightly worried. For that reason I believe that it is right that I should speak about it and support the amendment.
I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) when he talks about a united Church. We all long for this. The most terrible part about Christendom is that we are not a united Church. We want to be a united Church. Our Lord longs to see a united Church, but we are only frail and human, and, unfortunately, we have not a united Church.
In every denomination a certain degree of latitude is found. There are always some people who think differently. I believe that this should be allowed. The amendment seeks to allow and to protect this.
Like the Anglican Church, the Methodist Church is really a coalition of views. The members are not all agreed on any certain doctrinal basis. It is no good anyone in this House saying that they are. I believe that in many ways it is the Church of England's strength that it embraces people who are Anglo-Catholics and people who are Evangelicals. They hold different beliefs and different views within the Anglican Church. It can also be the strength of the Methodist Church that it tolerates and allows various groups within it. We want a united Church united in its aims, but surely we can worship, think, talk and discuss in different ways rather than being in a set stream. I think that this right ought to be protected.
The hon. Member for Goole said that some strange people preach in Methodist pulpits. Perhaps I am one of them. All I can say is that I am constantly getting letters, and had another one today—

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman please realise that in spite of the 1969 legislation on the sharing of buildings—the Model Deed of the Methodist Church—it could be argued that he is acting illegally?

Mr. Mills: I must say sincerely that all I seek to do is to extend the Kingdom of God, and if the Methodists think that I am fit to go into one of their pulpits to take a service in an emergency—or perhaps a special one—I shall continue to do so until I am told otherwise.
There are, then, strange people, perhaps, preaching in Methodist pulpits, but I believe that in many ways that is a good thing. There may be special preachers, or strange preachers, such as myself, but that is entirely different from the position of paid Methodist ministers or deaconesses who may be out of step with the new agreed doctrinal standards. It may be said to them "You are out of step and you may not continue to preach." I believe that the amendment is seeking to safeguard and to protect these people, so that they may be allowed to continue.
There are people who are highly sensitive to certain doctrinal matters—particularly the Evangelicals, as compared with the Modernists. It is no good denying that in both the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church there are modernists who really are out of step with the Evangelicals. There is no question about it. We have to live with this. We do not like to say it, but it is a fact of life.
I think that if the House were to accept the amendment it would help to maintain confidence and to allay fears. There is nothing wrong in this. Surely the promoters of the Bill can see this. Surely, if they think carefully and in a Christ-like way, they can see the fears of certain people. I see no harm whatsoever in bringing in the amendment. I believe that it would do a tremendous amount to help in the present situation. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will be sensitive to these people and that the amendment will be allowed.
The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) talked about faith. It is a very good thing for people to have faith that the Methodist Church will care and will be sensible and sensitive. Surely that is right. It is right, too, that people should have faith that the doctrines of John Wesley will continue. But I am sure that the hon. Member realises that there are trends away from these things, and that that makes it extremely difficult for those who want to hold on to the very basis of their own belief in Methodism.
I have heard many sermons in the Methodist Church that are miles and miles away from what John Wesley preached. The same sort of thing can be said of many sermons in the Anglican


Church. Of course, faith is important, but it is also important to have consideration for and to be sensitive to the problems and fears of others. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Fred Evans: I certainly have every sympathy with the amendment and would be the first to admit the deep humanitarian motive that underlies it. I cannot, however, see my way to accepting it. I hope that I shall be able to give some fairly cogent reasons for my position.
There are still some vestigial remnants of the older thinking of the period from 1929 to 1932. I believe that we should never have had thrust upon us, however unwillingly, the power and capacity to act as arbiters in doctrinal matters. If we are to give to the Conference of the Methodist Church the right to rule its own destiny, we must see that no vistiges at all remain.
I speak as a non-Methodist, and I have always been struck by the great tolerance of the Methodist movement and the way in which its people incorporate so many different points of view. This augurs well for what will take place should the Bill become an Act. I suppose that the essence of it has been summed up tonight in that Methodism is really a way of living. It is the ethos of the belief that leads to this width of outlook, and this in itself will afford a reasonable protection.
The second matter to which I draw attention is that the debate so far has been unmarked by any deep delving into doctrinal matters. I was happy to hear the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) make this point, because it was not so in the Second Reading debate, when there was a tendency to delve into matters of a doctrinal nature.
The plain fact is that when the Methodist Conference was the ruler of its own destiny in doctrinal matters, as it was for such a long time, we did not see very many serious disputes about doctrine, and the situation which arose leading to the period from 1929 to 1932, when investigated historically, will, I think, show multitudes of reasons for that situation, very few of them doctrinal and some of them of a trivial and very petty nature.
We therefore find ourselves the custodians of an entrenched doctrine. But are we to argue that, however much the

world changes, entrenched doctrine will remain entrenched doctrine? I thought that there was a hint of this in the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—

Mr. Beith: Mr. Beith indicated dissent.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman does not agree. However, anyone who travels the country and talks about these matters to people will discover that very many of them do not even know that their doctrines in Methodism are entrenched because they had passed on to them the situation before 1932 and this has become a tradition with them.
I do not think that safeguards can be written into legislation. Again, time will pass by. The evolutionary process will take place. As the world has altered, so our attitudes to religious faiths have altered—not the faiths themselves, but our attitudes to the forms of expression and organisation of the faiths have changed.
In Clause 30 of the Deed of Union, for example, it was encumbent upon the priesthood of 50 years ago to say that they accepted the priesthood as their sole occupation, whereas today we have moved so far that we have worker priests and people of all kinds working in the various churches. We accept those changes, and so do the churches. Yet that provision is still there in the Deed of Union, and it is argued that it is now impossible probably for the Methodist Church to insist upon its priests being 100 per cent. involved in that sole occupation of the priesthood. We have people who teach religious instruction in schools. We have people doing various other tasks. We do not see them as incompatible—

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman must know that the very Deed of Union to which he has referred says quite clearly that the Methodist Church believes that no priesthood exists which belongs exclusively to a particular order or class of men but that, in the exercise of its corporate life and worship, special qualifications to discharge its special duties are required, and that the passage about sole occupation indicates simply that some are called and ordained to the sole occupation of being Christ's ministers in His church.

Mr. Evans: I am no expert, but I believe that the Methodist Church is the only Church which has the organisational set-up of adherents. I see a further safeguard in the fact that the Church has vast numbers of people who are extremely busy in supporting their churches but who do not feel it incumbent upon them to become members. For one reason or another, they do not wish to be members. Nevertheless, they play a vivid and active part in the life of their churches. These people are some 900,000 strong as compared with the official membership of 500,000. I cannot see a religion which is willing to accept this concept with such breadth of vision yielding for one moment to a situation which might savour, however mildly, of witch-hunting.
In the evidence which the Committee received, this point was dealt with by the Secretary of the Methodist Church. He was at pains to point out that while situations of disagreement did arise there was always great tolerance, a willingness to discuss and a willingness to act in a helpful way to see whether the dissent could be accommodated. In the final analysis there has been a willingness, if dissent is adamant, to try to find a denomination in which the tenets held by a person in that position would be more acceptable.
I know of a well-known parson, unfortunately now deceased, to whom all this applied, and there was a great deal of kindliness in the whole situation which filled me with even greater admiration for the way in which Methodists conduct their affairs.
I believe that doctrinal issues will be very rare. In the history of the Methodist Church they have been so rare, in fact, that they can almost be discounted. I believe that in future the rarity will be even more so now that the Methodist Church will be given—if the Bill passes—the right to decide its own doctrinal affairs.
I turn now to the situation in which someone is completely adamant in his dissent. I do not wish to introduce a sense of levity, but this reminds me of a situation in which an academic body decides that the world is flat. A young Galileo comes along with different thoughts, and as time goes by the roundness of the earth is accepted by all but one or two people. These dissenters say that it was

on the belief that the earth was flat that they entered the academic organisation, and that they will remain flat earthers. They demand the right to propagate their principle of flat-earthness in spite of all things said to the contrary and despite efforts to dissuade them. The organisation should then say that it accords them that right, that they may remain where they are and continue to preach the same beliefs that they have preached hitherto. This is the kind of argument one hears.
We can safely entrust the Methodist Church, after the history of this exercise of trying to regain the one power which every other Church has, and which was taken from it, to look after that power.
I end as I started by paying tribute to the very sincere and humanitarian outlook behind the introduction of the amendment, but I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In the interests of close debate, I take issue at once with the final point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans). I believe most emphatically that we are not discussing anything remotely analogous to a flat-earther teaching a school of physical science. If we were I would not be speaking in favour of an amendment of this kind, because it would he too ridiculous.
We are speaking about a vast and mysterious subject on which there can be no precision and, in my view, no precise or always valid dogma. If we are talking about a school of physical sciences, and if a proven physical discovery had been widely debated in the scientific journals and held to be a new truth, it would be pernicious for that school to permit the teaching of some physical scientific fact which had been wholly disproved. But that is a million light years away from the matter of the human spirit and the divine purpose and being which are central to the matter tonight.
I am inclined to think that the House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) for reminding us, after some rather purple passages elsewhere, that those who entangled the Methodist Church with the parliamentary process, the people who have caused these debates, are the Conference which has promoted the Bill. It is intolerable


for it to be continually alleged, especially outside the House—and here I use a phrase which might amuse you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that Methodism is being entangled with "a secular court", as this House is described in Methodist papers. If anyone has entangled a secular court with the affairs of Methodism, it is not the proposers of the amendment or those who objected to Second Reading but those who promoted the Bill.
Let me be more blunt as a West Yorkshireman than some of the more polite speakers tonight. It seems peevish of those who have promoted the Bill and have asked Parliament to take action to complain when Members of Parliament, who have plenty of other things to do, feel it their bounden and conscientious duty to enter certain objections against all the odds and against the barrage of obedient ministerial letters which have been sent to us in response to an instruction from headquarters.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Does not the hon. Member agree that it is peevish for the upholders, calling themselves the voice of Methodism, and having failed at the Methodist Conference, now to try to use the House to achieve their objectives?

Mr. Wainwright: No. I reassert that if people promote a Bill in Parliament they inevitably expose themselves to the consequences of their action. I cannot abate one tittle of the rights and duties of Methodists who have carefully considered this matter to act as the promoters have done and take advantage in a proper manner of the parliamentary process
I am grateful once more to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) for sketching most accurately and vividly, and in a thoroughly characteristic way, the whole atmosphere in which most of the Methodist Church does its work. He was at pains to point out that we are not a body devoted to precise definition. Precision is not one of the main Methodist virtues.
The hon. Member for Goole illustrated with exemplary accuracy that Methodists are a fellowship and do not attach any great importance to precise, legalistic, medieval, theological uniformity. When he gave us that sketch, the hon. Gentleman gave us the amendment. The only

conceivable objection to the amendment is that theory is not looked at with a totally cold eye of logic which, fortunately, the House has the sense to use only rarely.
8.45 p.m.
It might seem slightly illogical for the Methodist Church to arrive at a new doctrine and allow, for a limited period, certain ministers a dispensation, but the hon. Member for Goole, with perfect accuracy, pointed out that Methodists, preachers and congregations, are a fellowship and are not a body of logicians.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does not that situation result from having ministers ancient and modern?

Mr. Wainwright: We cannot get away from that fact, and I regard it as an advantage and part of the wonderful variety of human tapestry in which we work.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: In addition to being a Methodist, I am a mathematician, so perhaps I might comment of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the logicality of the situation. If we are to accept within the Bill that doctrine should no longer be entrenched logically, the deduction from that is that there should be no remaining parliamentary direction over how the doctrinal variations within the Church should be organised.

Mr. Wainwright: But the whole Bill is about parliamentary direction for the ordering of the Methodist Church. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Member for Goole, who has given great consideration to these matters, to say that Parliament is now getting rid of its responsibilities for Methodist matters. There are still enormous areas of parliamentary supervision over Methodist property and trust deeds. If Methodists want to alter trust deeds they will have to come to Parliament.
One point has so far not been brought out. This is a rather solemn moment. Parliament is handing back to Methodism what, as the hon. Member for Preston, North, (Mr. Atkins) said, Parliament was asked to take on in 1929.
Any trustee about to divest himself of his responsibilities has a moral, and often


a legal, duty to look round the whole sphere of his trust and, before quitting, ask whether the beneficiaries for whom he is responsible are being properly looked after and are being handed over in a proper condition to a proper regime. That is what Parliament is being asked to do.
I am surprised that a non-Methodist hon. Member has not asked whether ministers, who may have given half their lives or more to the Church and might now face a great crisis of conscience versus feeding the family, should not have been given proper protection by the goodhearted Methodist people themselves.
The message of the Bill is that Methodist officials—though I am sure they regret it now—never took steps to put themselves in the position of being able to tell Parliament that they had firm and indisputable evidence that the mass of the members of the Methodist Church supported all the provisions of the Bill. Unfortunately, neither the Bill nor an abstract of its provisions was put before the circuits of the Methodist Church.

Mr. Fred Evans: In examining the evidence, we discovered that every Methodist minister had received a copy of the Bill, that it had gone to synod level and that 8,000 copies, were distributed.

Mr. Wainwright: I was saying that it was beyond dispute that the Bill contained matters that were never laid before the circuit meetings of Methodists. That means that consideration was limited only to certain indirectly-elected bodies mostly of committed ecclesiastics. Therefore, the answer to the hypothetical question "Do not Methodists look after their own?" is "Yes, we usually do, but on this occasion Methodists have not had a chance to consider whether there might be a problem." As so often happens, the matter is left to this House to look after what may be a small minority of extremely worthy and deserving cases.
Let me try to meet another possible objection which has not so far been raised but which might be nut in the form of the question "Why did not the Select Committee, which spent so many hours labouring on the Bill, take this point?" Incidentally, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Select Committee.

It devised its own amendment on how doctrine can be changed by conference, which has driven into the official structure of the Methodist Church a most potent wedge of genuine democracy. The Select Committee has insisted that matters of doctrine must be the subject of consultation down to local church level. That has greatly eased the feelings of many of us who otherwise would have felt obliged to oppose the Bill to the end.
On the matter we are now debating, I suggest that mainly owing to the attitude of the petitioners' counsel, who perhaps was coming to the end of a wearisome week, the Select Committee was not given an opportunity fully to explore in every detail the kind of amendment we are now proposing.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: We asked the promoters time and again whether there was any intention to change doctrine. We always received the answer "No" and were told that it was merely a hypothesis that doctrine was to be changed. That being the case, it was not necessary to make Provision for something that was not expected to take place. No doubt if there were such a change that conference could deal with the problem when it arose.

Mr. Wainwright: I do not believe the most enthusiastic promoters of the Bill would claim that they wanted so blatantly to have it both ways. No promoter can come to Parliament and say "We solemnly seek powers to change our doctrine, but we have not the slightest intention of doing so. Therefore, let us not bother about it."

Mr. Ronald Atkins: The promoters were saying "We no longer wish Parliament to be the arbiter of our conscience."

Mr. Wainwright: I do not wish to waste any more time on that matter—

Mr. Ron Lewis: rose—

Mr. Wainwright: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his comments later.
However, I ask the House to bear with me briefly while I take hon. Members over the main points of what happened in Committee when this matter, the subject of the amendment, was raised. First,


the Secretary of the Methodist Conference, in a reply on page 38 of the minutes of the second day's evidence, said that he understood the case, but
it is just very difficult to see how any provision of that kind could be made.
We believe firmly—no one has controverted it tonight—that our amendment provides one method of doing exactly what is required.
Secondly, in discussing a change of doctrine, the answer of the Secretary of the Methodist Conference, throughout the whole of a long reply, implied that changes of doctrine would always, inevitably, be for the better. His version of a change of doctrine was a
deeper understanding and interpretation of truth.

Mr. Ogden: Send for reinforcements.

Mr. Wainwright: However, surely the possibility must be envisaged that sometimes, in the whole length of human history, there have been changes promulgated in thought and doctrine which have not been a deeper understanding and interpretation of truth but have been, in fact, regressive. That is the unfortunate possibility that we must bear in mind when other people ask Parliament for certain power.
Then, at page 39 of the minutes of the second day's sitting of the Committee, an hon. Member serving on the Committee, no doubt unfamiliar with Methodist practice, asked the Secretary of the Conference:
Would you not say that this has already happened to a very substantial extent both in the Church of England and even more possibly in the Church of Rome?
The Secretary of the Methodist Conference answered—no doubt off the cuff, in a hasty session—
I think that is so, sir, yes.
We from this side in the debate shall have failed if we have not made it clear that we are dealing with a rigorous system of church discipline. It may not often be enforced. However, we are talking here about what the law is, and not how it is applied. We are dealing with a rigorous system of church discipline which is entirely different from that of the Church of England. With respect, the suggestion in Committee that all that was happening was that things were being

brought into line with the Church of England was simply untrue.
Then arose the whole question as to how the conference would be likely to behave if it were confronted, after a change of doctrine, with a minister who wanted to stick with the old doctrine. Very fairly, the officials of the conference maintained that the conference was a very humane and sensitive body and that in some way or another, which was not specified, these matters would probably be resolved, but that if they were not the conference would say goodbye to the dissenting minister in the kindliest possible fashion.
We say that the situation of a minister running the risk of having a handshake of farewell, no matter how kindly given, is not tolerable. One is bound to point out—it has not yet been pointed out in the debate—that in recent years two Methodist ministers have been expelled on the grounds of their beliefs. Going back further in history, the particular Methodist church to which I belong, an official Methodist church, was founded by the 1,000 sympathisers in Leeds of three senior Methodist ministers who were expelled from the conference in a parody of judicial proceedings, which The Times said were worse than the Star Chamber.
9.0 p.m.
One cannot repose faith in the comments of a particular temporary officer of the conference, no matter how sincere his words may be.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He has given the impression that the Methodist Church has been most unkind—indeed, cruel—to members who are expelled. It should be said on behalf of the Methodist Church that it bent over backwards to try to help those two colleagues.

Mr. Wainwright: As I have said before, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will later make his speech in his own way.
I come now to the final point, hon. Members will be relieved to hear, about the hearings in Committee. It was suggested by the petitioners, as indeed we who propose the amendment suggest tonight, that a number of ministers and deaconesses entered the ministry of the Methodist Church with some confidence


in the knowledge that the doctrine was virtually entrenched, because it could not be altered without all the bother and the risk of coming to the House.
This matter was aired too briefly by counsel in Committee, and the answer of the Secretary of the Methodist Conference seemed to me to be very surprising. He said:
…most of our ministers never give it a thought. The vast majority of our members, until this blew up, were unaware of the fact that we were shackled in this way; in other words, they did not know anything about the history of 1929–32.
We are talking entirely about ministers. The reference to members in Committee was irrelevent.
We on this side dispute the suggestion that those who have been trained in Methodist colleges where church history is a compulsory subject have not at least been given the opportunity, if their ears were open, to understand the comparatively recent history of the Methodist Church.
I can speak for only one college, now closed, which has trained hundreds of eminent Methodist ministers—the college at Headingly, Leeds. I assure Members that a number of Mehodists in Leeds were conscientious in ensuring that at the Headingley college the history of each of the different strands of Methodism, with no particular predominance to the ancient strand but with full recognition of the newer strands, was properly taught to those entering the Methodist ministry.
It is a little hard on the staff of those colleges that the secretary of the conference should suggest that those now in the Methodist ministry are woefully ignorant of a central part of Methodist history.
All that we are seeking is a dispensation for a strictly limited time of the working life of people already in the ministry—an arrangement, therefore, which has a limited period of validity and which is only a dispensation. The amendment does not ask that Methodists should be required to tolerate two parallel and different formulations of doctrinal standards. As the Bill goes through, Methodists will establish their own doctrinal standards, but we say that, as in literally dozens of other Acts of Parliament which bear upon flesh and blood, which bear upon people who have committed their

careers, as in the case of many other pieces of legislation, there should be a dispensation for those who have pursued a particular line of belief for many years and whose consciences would be put into an intolerable position if the law were to prove a steamroller.

Mr. David Hunt: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I admit that I found these provisions most confusing at first, as they cover not only doctrine but property.
I admit also to some misgivings, particularly when I received from constituents, whose opinions I value considerably, letters expressing great concern about what they said was a great lack of consultation about the provisions of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned a memorial passed by the Hoylake and West Kirby circuit, within my constituency, which deplored the lack of information about the Bill. I shall refer to that memorial because it governs to some extent my initial concern about the Bill.
That memorial, passed almost unanimously within the Hoylake and West Kirby circuit, said:
We deplore the lack of information concerning the contents of the Methodist Church Bill. We believe that such a fundamental issue requires fuller discussion. If serious mistakes of detail are to be avoided, there must be wide publicity and debate at the grass roots of our denomination. We therefore suggest that Conference should not discuss this until 1976 after the circuits have had opportunity to voice their opinion
throughout the country.
It became clear to me from the correspondence I receivved that there were some fundamental misconceptions about the content of the Bill. The first letter I received, from lifelong Methodists, said that they did not want their doctrines to be altered by the Bill. When I heard of the memorial, I was very glad to have an opportunity of discussing the Bill with the ministers in my constituency. On closer consideration, I discovered that many of the worries of the two constituents who initially contacted me were not sustained by closer scrutiny of the Bill.
I wish, therefore, to put the record straight. Since there was that initial concern within the circuit about lack of opportunity for discussion, I put to the


Methodist ministers in my constituency a clear request that, in order to give people every opportunity, before we had this debate they should ensure that the Bill was put on the agenda of the various Church courts which have been meeting during the past few months.
I am glad to say that they have done so, and there has been very full discussion at the circuit courts. Indeed, the circuit preachers' meeting, at which one of the objectors was given every opportunity to air his views, by about a 75 per cent. majority said that the Bill should be supported and brought into law as soon as possible, and a resolution to that effect was sent to me at the end of September. Now, therefore, people within my constituency, not just the ministers, have had an opportunity of considering the Bill, and I should make clear that the memorial originally passed has now been rescinded by a vote within the circuit meeting.
Although I have had the privilege of listening to what I felt was an extremely well argued, logical and well expressed speech from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), why am I not persuaded by his rhetoric? I think that it is because I share the concern of one of the ministers in my constituency, the Rev. Edward Sainsbury, who told me that after due consideration he felt that the matter of doctrine ought to be within the hands of the Methodist Church and not subject to Parliament. The hon. Member for Colne Valley will quickly nod in agreement with that statement. But this amendment goes wrong because, in my view, the Methodist Conference should be the trustee of its own doctrinal issues, without parliamentary chains.
The amendment would establish a statutory right to dissent. Having given the Methodist Conference the right to decide its own doctrine there would be a parliamentary sting in the tail which would enable any preacher—and the hon. Member for Colne Valley said that it might be a very small minority—to confuse the issues of doctrine by persisting with a previous element within the doctrine when a change had taken place, approved by an overwhelming majority at conference. After due consideration

and consultation I have reached the conclusion that it is not fitting for us as a House of Commons to sit in judgment on the doctrines of Methodism. We should pass the Bill and reject the amendment.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I do not claim to be an expert on the Methodist Church. I make that clear at the outset. Like many other Members I have received representations from people who appear to be on both sides of this argument. In that situation we come to what is inevitable in our rôle as Members of Parliament. We must make a judgment and act accordingly. To decide my course of action I have made a number of inquiries to clarify the issue. Having done that, if the problem were a theological one I would still feel somewhat sceptical about making a contribution, because I am no expert theologian.
It seems, however, that this Bill is about democracy within a Church and not about theology. It is on that basis that I address the House. The Methodist Conference is a body that contains 50 per cent. elected clergy and 50 per cent. Methodist churchgoers. The conference has the right to determine doctrine in the Church, and that is presumably done on the basis of a majority vote. Within the local church situation it is the local members of the church who determine the nature of its activities. It is local churchgoers in part of my constituency and the adjacent constituency of my colleague the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) who have made representations suggesting that a majority in the locality seeks support for this Bill.
I do not wish to get involved in debating doctrine, because that is a matter for collective action within the Church and not for Members of Parliament. Clearly, some people in Methodism want to change the doctrine. That seems perfectly legitimate. But they will have to do that through the normal conference mechanisms that exist. The Church Council is democratically elected, whereas I understand that the trustees are not. They tend to be a self-perpetuating oligarchy. Since I am making a contribution that arises directly from constituency representations, I believe that the House ought to support the Bill without any amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Spearing: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) have perhaps asked the wrong question. I do not think that there is very much risk of the Bill being opposed tonight. That is very unlikely. What is at issue is the amendment, and both hon. Gentlemen, with respect, addressed their remarks rather more to the Bill than to the amendment.
I am certainly one of those who would not wish the Methodist Church to have to come to the House for any doctrinal test or change. But that is not the question. The question before us tonight is on what conditions this House permits, through this measure, a change in the structure and the way in which the Methodist Church formulates its doctrine, and what safeguards the House wishes or does not wish to put in in that process.
The Select Committee has already put in an additional and a very important safeguard. I for one am satisfied with that. That is why I am not opposing the Bill, although I did so on Second Reading. Perhaps it was a good thing that some of us did oppose the Second Reading, so that that important safeguard should go in.
The Methodist Church is a very important body. I am not a Methodist, although one of my parents was, but I can say that the Methodist Church is rooted in the history of Britain and, indeed, the history of this place. Many illustrious personages on the Front Benches—I think the last two occupants of the Chair—have a lot for which to thank the Methodists.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The last three occupants.

Mr. Spearing: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for my inaccuracy, but it underlines what has been said about the Methodist "mafia". People often say that the party of which I am proud to be a member owes more to Methodism than Marx. I happen to think that a mixture of Marx and Wesley, although rather strange, is a good one. I thus speak with a vested interest in the continued health and activity of the Methodist Church.
I should like to put forward three tests. First, how far did the discussions within

Methodism come up to the standards which Methodism would itself set? Secondly, what protection is there for minorities in the proposals and, thirdly, how are they translated into legislative guarantee?
I suggest that looking at these three questions we come up with an answer that the Bill is unsatisfactory at the moment. I think it has been agreed, even by the promoters, that a little more might have been done in respect of consultation. I was speaking to a constituency colleague who is well known in the public life of my constituency and asked him: "You are a Methodist. What about this Bill?" He replied "I had not heard anything about it until I heard about it on Yesterday in Parliament'." That was a trustee of his local church who attends every Sunday. The trustees may not all have been traceable, but some could have been traced. They were not approached.
The Select Committee itself has written into the Bill a provision for consultation at Church level which was not originally in the Bill. I should have thought that that itself is its own commentary. Therefore, on the first test of discussion within the denomination we should have to say that perhaps the promoters did not do as much as they should have done.
On the question of protection of minorities, and at the risk of clashing with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), it is important to make some reference to doctrine. As I understand it, the evidence of at least one of the witnesses before the Committee—Dr. Becker Legge—was that there was in Methodism a distinct polarity of view, particularly on the nature of the priesthood—the high Wesleyans on the one hand and the primitive Methodists on the other—at the time of the 1933 merger. Far from the House shackling Methodism, I would have thought it would be better for Methodism to come together in a self-denying ordinance and say "We are not going to discuss this because we shall note the Deed of Union and leave it at that". This possibly is a divisive doctrinal matter and the one that I have mentioned were never to be discussed, thus it was not an issue. I would have thought that that was a sensible arrangement. It may be that the promoters of the Bill do not wish to bring that matter


forward if, indeed, there are changes in the doctrinal standards. A letter from the Secretary of the conference to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) points out that
There is no present intention of making any changes".
At page 16 of the Select Committee hearing, counsel for the promoters, Mr. Boydell, said:
I want…to give one or two examples of the difficulties which have arisen in practice.
He gave three examples. The first was language, the second was sole occupation, on which there has been some discussion this evening, and the third was the question of "maintained". However, he did not speak about the interpretation and nature of the ministry, on which two views have been maintained within Methodism, in complete harmony and fraternity to the benefit of Methodism and, I think, to the whole of the Christian Church. Perhaps there are fears by some who hold one or other view, but we are not here to discuss what they are tonight. However, there is some fear that a change in this respect will create some internal disturbance in the Church which otherwise would not have occurred.
On the second count—protection for the minority—there is some cause for concern. That brings us to the third test, because if there is cause for concern from a minority, what is the form and adequacy of the protection? In the Select Committee the Secretary of the Methodist Conference said that in the past when there had been difficulties with ordained men their pensions had remained intact and they had been helped to gain occupations. It seems that in a fraternal way they were helped in their future lives. However, if there were a change in the doctrine, it would not necessarily be only one change. For example, there might well be a change in an individual's whole career, and the question of the Church taking a different direction. It may not come to that, but that is what some fear.
Unlike the United Reformed Church Bill and other Bills that have come before the House, where there has been a distinct opportunity for a division of funds or of property, the Bill does not permit division. I understand that the trustee clauses, which we are not discussing and on which we are not

disagreed, give central control in the final analysis. Unless there is another Bill, they forbid the division that may be adovcated in such conditions. I suggest that there is a real fear and that the Bill as it stands does not meet it. I happen to think that it is a great pity that the Bill has come to us as it stands.
I believe that Christian unity is not necessarily an organic unity. The Christian Church spends much of its time on internal discussions and doctrinal discussions. Until now the Methodist Church has not done so. Perhaps it is a good thing it has not. Perhaps it has been able to witness in the community. Certainly the world needs many things. The Methodist Church has a lot to give. It has historic concern for the prisoner, for example, and for social conditions. It would be a pity if the Bill went through in its present form and if that concern were to be blunted in any way.
Some time ago, as a result of the call from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the British Council of Churches had a committee at Lambeth Palace on the other side of the river. I understand that it could not make any call—it was dumb. I suggest that that happened because too many of our Christian friends are concerned with internal matters and not with the world in which they have to preach the Gospel.
I conclude by quoting an amazing passage from the Select Committee proceedings. I refer to page 7 of the report, when the Secretary of the Methodist Conference, under examination by Mr. Mortimer, was asked:
Has there been a groundswell for Conference to try to take this power?
He answered:
No, I am sure there has not.
That is what we are discussing. Is it a storm in a teacup? I hope that it is. From many points of view the Christian Church has been looked upon as an army. There are the old hymns about the army of the Church. Each of the denominations is a regiment and every Christian, and perhaps non-Christian, wants to see each of the regiments as strong, vigorous, well-directed and cohesive as it can be. Whether the Bill goes through or whether it does not, and whether the amendment goes through or whether it does not, I hope that in future the Methodist Church will be a


fine regiment. We want to see it so. That applies not only to this country but throughout the world.

Mr. Costain: I resist the temptation to utter the cry "Onward Christian soldiers" in following the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). In the Second Reading debate I explained how, as an adolescent, by a fortunate coincidence I was present at the earlier discussion between leaders of the Methodist Church.
I was disappointed to see on the Order Paper the reference to the six months' delay, and I was delighted to hear that that was only a procedural motion. I thought that the amendment was unimportant and that it would not affect the Bill very much. Knowing the Methodist Church as you do, Mr. Speaker, you will know that it does not make decisions quickly, either on doctrine or policy. The old Section 30 shows the enormous diversity that is allowed. I understood that only one member had been expelled from the Church, but the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that three had been expelled. Whether it be one or three, there would have been good reason for it, not necessarily a doctrinal reason.
Innocent though the amendment may seem to be, if we accept it we should be saying that Parliament does not trust the Methodist Church to look after its own affairs and that we must have a saving clause. We are not here talking about a colony, where it is sometimes necessary to safeguard the minority. Surely, like every other free Church, the Methodist Church should be able to look after its own affairs. It should be able to trust its own conference, which is democratically elected.
Even those who support the amendment suggested that it was a pity it came to Parliament in the first place. We know why it came, but let us not accept it.

Mr. Ogden: A few minutes before my hon. Friend the Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) made his powerful intervention, he told me that the 1929 Bill went through the House on the nod, with no debate. Times have changed. Whatever complaints are made, Parliament has considered the Bill and if the promoters have learnt something they did not know before they "ken the noo."
I hope that the custom of 1929 remains the same, Mr. Speaker. In a neutral position as presiding officer of the House, if it comes to the casting vote, I hope that you will uphold the tradition and vote for the Bill without alteration.
We are divided completely across the parties between those who are prepared to trust the Methodist Church to manage its own affairs and those who say that they trust the Methodist Church to a degree but wish to impose certain safeguards. That word "safeguards" is the key to their doubt. I am not following Dr. Kissenger's example in trying to get maximum agreement by fudging issues, but no one has told me why certain people have doubts. It is not the heirarchical system of the Methodist Church, the formation of conference. The Methodist Conference is a great deal more democratic than the Labour Party Conference ever was or probably ever will be, and it is certainly more democratic than is the Conservative Party Conference.
I am told that people in various places, including Colne Valley, have doubts, but no one has spelt out those doubts. I wonder whether the doubts about the direction of the Church in its search for unity are based on a fear that there will be a loss in doctrinal standards and a loss of Protestant belief that would be unacceptable. No one has spelt it out.
9.30 p.m.
The amendment is a one-off amendment, and my complaint is that either it goes too far or not far enough. Under the amendment, if a minister, deaconess or lay preacher had contracted to preach the gospel inside the church at a particular time on the basis of a particular doctrine which was later changed by the conference, he or she would be required to change the basis on which they preached. That is unlikely to make any change in the situation in Lancashire, where we preach the gospel in our own particular way. In such a situation there may be as many who agree with the new doctrine as with the old. In Lancashire or Yorkshire, we do not want a Tridentine conflict.
The principle is that if a person makes a contract and the terms of the contract are changed he should be allowed to keep to the conditions of his contract. A minister, finding the basis of his contract


changed, would be allowed to preach the old gospel. But in five or 50 years' time a minister who came into the Church on the basis of the new doctrine, which was then changed a second time, would not have the rights that are being asked for now.
The amendment goes too far. If it makes one rule, it should apply to all. Nothing in the Bill should prevent the right of people to preach the gospel in a manner that is based on the doctrinal standards of the day when they were appointed. The amendment falls between two stools. It does too much for today and not enough for tomorrow, and I would therefore prefer to leave the matter where it is.
The promoters and the Methodist Church itself have learned a lot from the discussion. Members of the Church have been diligent. Although, there are only ourselves in the Chamber, one could say that we are surrounded by a crowd of heavenly witnesses.
Either we have to take a calculated risk and trust the Churches to manage their own affairs or we should control them and take over ourselves. This halfway stage is no good. Surely the Churches have enough common sense to be trusted and I therefore do not support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I have to tell the House that the Division bells in Norman Shaw North are out of action. Post Office engineers are trying to find and repair the fault. Meanwhile, night watchmen are telling hon. Members in that vicinity about the bells. I am saying this now in order to make it perfectly clear that if an hon. Member says later that he did not hear the bells, if there is a Division, I shall not allow a second Division.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was puzzled about the remarks made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who had the wrong end of the stick. He said that a new entrant would not have the right to dissent but would have to join on particular terms. In the past, those who joined the church joined on other terms, and it is their conscientious right and spiritual freehold that we are seeking to preserve in the amendment.
I was extremely interested in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). He was worried about this matter. He pointed out that many consultations were held in his locality and that 75 per cent. of those taking part came round to the Methodist Conference's point of view. But can we be assured that such consultation took place in all the other Methodist circuits? From the evidence given to the Select Committee, that seems to have been far from the case. That being so, although I appreciate the safeguards that have been, very wisely, written in by the Select Committee, I remain uneasy and would still like to see the right of conscience preserved by the amendment for those who seriously believe in the old terms which applied when they joined.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Like other hon. Members, I do not intend to labour anything that I have to say. The important point at stake is that the supporters of the amendment seek to shackle the Methodist Church as no other church is shackled. All that we and the Methodist Church are asking for is that the Methodist Church should have the same freedom as other churches. That will not be the case if the amendment is carried.
I hope that the House will not shackle the Methodist Church by accepting the amendment, which could undermine doctrinal standards. That would not be good for the Methodist Church, to which I belong. On the other hand, if the Bill goes through unamended but, with the suggestions of the Select Committee, the corporate conscience of the Methodist Church will be maintained.
Much has been said about consultations right the way down. What the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) said was illuminating about the consultations in Wirral, but that happened in other parts of the country. The Bill is the voice of Methodism and the Methodist Conference and the promoters of the Bill are acting on behalf of the Methodist Conference, which has taken its decision through all its stages, although at times the consultation might have been somewhat flimsy in certain areas. The Bill expresses the corporate voice of the Methodist Conference, and I hope that


we in our wisdom will not be foolish enough to go against the voice of the Methodist Conference.
I make a plea to my fellow Methodists in this House, three at least of whom have signed the amendment. I ask them not to press the amendment to a Division. The subject has had a good airing and they have had a chance to put their point of view for the small minority. But the voice of Methodism is the Methodist Conference itself. I hope that, as we have had a good debate, those who have signed the amendment will withdraw it and allow the Bill to go through unamended, which is what the Methodist Church wants.

Mr. Beith: With the leave of the House I seek, as the mover of the amendment, to reply.
I am tempted by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), my old friend and co-warrior on so many issues—we have spent many happy Fridays together on other matters of concern to Methodists—to direct precisely the same plea at the promoters of the Bill, who through their spokesmen have been very constructive and helpful, to consider accepting the amendment. I shall turn to that later in my remarks by way of reply, which I do not intend shall occupy the whole of the remaining time.
Let us be clear. The amendment arises not out of any desire to impose on Methodism shackles which it ought not to have but out of consideration of a proposal by the Methodist Conference to change the procedure of which the conference itself made Parliament the guarantor. The basis of the whole of this lies with the Methodist Conference. It would not be on the statute book at all but for decisions of previous Methodist Conferences. Parliament is being asked to take away a safeguard, a guarantee, and in those circumstances Parliament must look at the position of those whom guarantees of that kind are designed to protect.
The amendment does not deny Methodists the right to determine their own doctrine or challenge the principles of the Bill. It deals solely with the preachers who came in under the old safeguard. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) tempts me to go much further and to build in quite new protec-

tions. I ask him, however, to look at the precise position of those who would be protected by the Bill and to deal with the amendment that is before us. He might wish to be much more radical than I, but I think he ought, on his arguments, to support our amendment.
We have had a most constructive and helpful debate, and I am grateful to those in all parts of the House and on both sides of the argument who have taken part. Some who opposed the amendment felt that the situation might not arise, but that argument must not concern us. We must prepare, in legislation which explicitly provides for this situation, for how it will be handled. We must not simply suppose that it will never happen, otherwise there would be no need at all to pass the legislation.
Some have thought that if anything occurs it will be of a minor nature, but it could equally be major. There is no guarantee that it will be minor. It might be major.
It has been said that the present doctrinal statement is wide. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) said this. But a future statement, with which we are concerned in particular, might not be. It might be narrow and restrictive and it might exclude whole categories of people.
It has been suggested that the elected conference ought to be in total control of the situation and should wholly reflect the views of Methodists, and that it should be, as the hon. Member for Carlisle said, the voice of Methodism. The conference is bound in some ways to under-represent some of the minority views which can develop in Methodism. It is an indirectly-elected body. Representatives are elected through its various stages and not directly from grass roots to conference. They are elected through church to circuit to synod to conference. Election is not directly, as in the case of the General Synod of the Church of England, which has stolen a march on us, with a considerable improvement. It has a form of direct representation which we lack.
In that situation, and with the very large number of office-holders who are automatically members of conference, there is a risk that a sizeable minority might find itself under-represented in


conference. The fact that it is a minority does not absolve us from the need for the amendment. It points to the need for it.
The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) referred to the 25 per cent. minority in his own synod, and other hon. Members pointed out that, under the procedures that the Bill sets out, the minority would have to be 25 per cent. or less. But that size of minority is one about which Parliament ought to be concerned. Even a smaller minority, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) argued, ought to have the attention of the House.
There are very genuine fears felt among a lot of people. The hon. Member for Devon. West (Mr. Mills) was most eloquent in pointing to them. If anything, they are strengthened by the two hon. Members who spoke from their own deep convictions and interest in such a way as to suggest that there was a real need that the conference should change its doctrine, and should do so soon.
There were very broad hints in what the hon. Member for Preston, North and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) said—that the wind of change ought to be blowing through the courts of Methodism and that we should be explicitly preparing for doctrinal change. I think that in saying that they went beyond the Secretary of the conference.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating what I said. I said merely that the conference should be open to possible demands for minor changes. It is inevitable that over a long period these changes might have to be made.

Mr. Beith: Yes, and, as the Bill will make quite clear, the conference will have the power. I do not intend to oppose the Bill. The conference will be able to make not just minor but major changes, and the safeguard that we are discussing is for the position of those who entered the Methodist Church on terms which required the doctrine not to be altered unless it was first brought to Parliament. It is with that necessarily dying group over the years that we should be concerned particularly.
The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) dealt very fairly with the amendment and said that, although he did not wish it to be in the Bill, he could not see its doing any harm. He painted a picture of Methodism in which it would not do any harm.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I think that I said it would not be the end of the world.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will hasten to the Hansard room to make sure that those words appear in his speech. He left me with the impression that he did not see that a protection of this kind would be of very much effect if his feelings were justified, and his view was that change was unlikely in any event but that, if it came about, it was likely to be dealt with in such a spirit of fellowship that there would not be those who felt that they had to cast themselves on the mercy of a protection of this kind.
We all hope that that will be the case, but that does not absolve us from the need to make sure that the protection is there. A protection which is never used is possibly the best protection of all, but it is not one which Parliament should leave out for that reason. In my view, we should be the more ready to see that that final fall-back position is available. It is temporary. It is confined to a limited group of people who entered upon the heavy and demanding duties of preachers—I think especially of the full-time ministers and deaconesses of the Methodist Church—knowing that they could preach a doctrine which was unalterable.
It is a small but important safeguard and benefit to confer on those people that we give them the assurance that, if the feelings expressed today are not borne out, they are protected for the remainder of their working lives. If people subsequently come into the Methodist Church, they know that the doctrine can be changed by a simple procedure. They know that, if that happens, under the procedures of the Bill itself they can be excluded, but they will have come in with that knowledge. To those who came in without that knowledge, Parliament owes a duty because Parliament passed the 1929 legislation. I ask the House not to permit those circumstances in which it could arise, and I ask it to pass this amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill to be read the Third Time.

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 134.

Division No. 327.]
AYES
[9.49 p.m.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Mayhew, Patrick
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Clegg, Walter
Mills, Peter
Shepherd, Colin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Molyneaux, James
Skinner, Dennis


Cormack, Patrick
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spearing, Nigel


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mudd, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Golding, John
Noble, Mike
Thompson, George


Henderson, Douglas
Nott, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)



Jessel, Toby
Penhallgon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Mawby, Ray
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Richard Wainwright.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin






NOES


Archer, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
Parker, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Goodhew, Victor
Perry, Ernest


Atkinson, Norman
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bates, Alf
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bean, R. E.
Graham, Ted
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bishop, E. S
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hampson, Dr Keith
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Boardman, H.
Hardy, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harper, Joseph
Rowlands, Ted


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ryman, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hawkins, Paul
Silvester, Fred


Brotherton, Michael
Hooley, Frank
Sims, Roger


Buchanan, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sinclair, Sir George


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hunter, Adam
Stallard, A. W.


Carlisle, Mark
Hurd, Douglas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Stoddart, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Strang, Gavin


Clemitson, Ivor
Knox, David
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Concannon, J. D.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Costain, A. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Tinn, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lawrence, Ivan
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lipton, Marcus
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Cryer, Bob
Lomas, Kenneth
Ward, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Luard, Evan
Watkins, David


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Weatherill, Bernard


Dempsey, James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Weetch, Ken


Drayson, Burnaby
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Wells, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin
White, Frenk R. (Bury)


Durant, Tony
Madden, Max
Whitlock, William


Eadie, Alex
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Elliott, Sir William
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huylon)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Geraint
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Evans, John (Newton)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Woodall, Alec


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Woof, Robert


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Forrester, John
Nelson, Anthony



Fox, Marcus
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freud, Clement
Ogden, Eric
Dr. Edmund Marshall and


George, Bruce
Ovenden, John
Mr. Ron Lewis.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the Trinidad and Tobago Republic Bill [Lords] and the Resale Prices Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO REPUBLIC BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read

10.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This short Bill is a technical measure which is needed because Trinidad and Tobago became a republic on 1st August 1976. It follows the same lines as well-established precedents. I trust, therefore, that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is a non-controversial one.
The decision to become a republic was, of course, one for the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to take and did not in any way require the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. However, the consequence of this decision is that certain changes need to be made in the law of the United Kingdom. The Bill before the House provides that the law of the United Kingdom—and the law of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—as it applies to Trinidad and Tobago will not be affected by the fact that Trinidad and Tobago is now a republic.
The Bill will not apply generally to the law of the dependent territories of the United Kingdom but only to Acts of the British Parliament and Orders in Council applying such Acts which extend to such territories. This is the common-form provision in previous such cases.
The new constitution of Trinidad and Tobago retains provision for appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Hitherto, appeals from Trinidad and Tobago have lain to Her Majesty in Council, but this is no longer appropriate now that Trinidad and Tobago is no longer a part of Her Majesty's dominions. The Bill therefore makes provision to enable Her Majesty in Council to authorise the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the new constitution of Trinidad and Tobago to hear appeals direct from the courts of Trinidad and Tobago.
There is one point of detail in the Bill about which Members may wish to have some explanation. This is the provision of Clause 1 for the specification of "the appointed day" by an Order

in Council. Hon. Members may ask why the Bill does not simply say "1st August 1976", the day on which Trinidad and Tobago became a republic. The answer is that at the time the Bill was drafted and when it was introduced and passed in another place in July we did not know that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago were going to effect the change of constitution on 1st August; they announced this only on 27th July. The present Bill was drafted in this way, therefore, in the hope that it would have been enacted before Trinidad and Tobago became a republic so that the precise date could have been specified in the Order in Council. As matters have turned out, however, we shall have to specify as the appointed day either the day on which the Order is made or a subsequent day.
I am happy to inform hon. Members that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago have told the Commonwealth Secretary General that they wish the country to remain a member of the Commonwealth now that it is a republic, and the Secretary General so has informed the other members.
I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and its people continuing peace and prosperity.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I thank the Minister for giving such a clear exposition of the purposes and effect of the Bill. I agree with what he has said and I am happy, in particular, to confirm that the Bill is non-controversial.
I understand that the Bill has no effect on the substance of our relations with Trinidad and Tobago, and it is no disrespect to that country if we are brief; it is rather a proper recognition of the fact that it has already taken the substantive decision.
Many hon. Members and inhabitants of these islands have warm feelings towards Trinidad and Tobago because of the many long-standing links we have with that country. I had the good fortune to pay a visit there in 1974, but the bad fortune of paying it in the first two weeks of February that year. My visit was suddenly interrupted and I found myself on a plane back to this country, leaving behind the palm trees, sandy beaches and sunshine, thinking of what to put in my


election address and being conscious of the fact that I was three days later than my colleagues in drawing it up.
A number of countries in the developing world have become one-party States since independence, but I understand that the next election in Trinidad and Tobago is likely to be contested by 15 parties. This is hardly an example that I suggest we should follow—we already have enough parties—but it is something of which Trinidad and Tobago can be proud.
Trinidad and Tobago has seen a number of constitutional changes since the late 1950s, when it was a member of the Federation of the West Indies. It was not owing to the initiative of Trinidad and Tobago that the federation broke up, but since the end of the federation Trinidad and Tobago has recognised the inevitable economic interdependence of neighbouring countries by being a member successively of the Caribbean Free Trade Area and CARICOM.
Of more immediate moment to this country, Trinidad and Tobago is a signatory of the Lomè Convention between 46 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the EEC. I look forward to the development of that agreement because of the benefit that it will bring to both sides. I also look forward to the time when the EEC will work out a comprehensive policy towards the Caribbean area, including Trinidad and Tobago.
There have been many changes in the Commonwealth in recent years and many countries have become republics. In 1949, when India became a republic, the then Mr. R. A. Butler said in this House that the Bill gave Britain the opportunity to indicate to India that we understood her aspirations and her desires for development. That sentiment now remains true of our feelings towards Trinidad and Tobago.
The fact that she has decided to become a republic does not mean that her links with this country need become any weaker. Indeed, we hope that they will remain strong. We welcome the fact that Trinidad and Tobago intends to remain in the Commonwealth, which I still believe is one of the most valuable forums for the promotion of international understanding for all members, whatever their size. I am happy to wish Trinidad and Tobago success, prosperity and peace.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

RESALE PRICES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

BROADMEAD, HAMPTON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the purchase by the Greater London Council of Broadmead, Broad Lane, Hampton, in my constituency.
Broadmead is just one site, but its future concerns far more people than its immediate neighbours. If a high density development is permitted, Broadmead could be used as a precedent for high density developments throughout the village of Hampton as and when other sites become available. Therefore, decisions on this site could trigger off a change in the face of the district by the end of the century, or sooner.
Broadmead is a large Victorian house set in a garden of 1¾ acres. Two old ladies sold it to a private developer. Of course, the image of developers is not, by and large, attractive to everyone. I read the other day a poem by Sir John Betjeman, the Poet Laureate, which begins,
I am a young executive,
No cuffs than mine are cleaner,
I have a slimline brief case,
and I use the firm's Cortina.
He goes on to vandalise what should be cherished.
In the case of Broadmead, the developer was not like that. His scheme was good. The Victorian house was to be turned into 11 flatlets for elderly people, under the auspices of the Richmond-upon-Thames Churches Housing Trust. I strongly support this scheme. It remains the intention of the Richmond-upon-Thames Churches Housing Trust to carry this out, provided that squatters who have invaded the house can be evicted. This is due to take place tomorrow morning.
Incidentally, I believe that the law on squatting should be reformed, and quickly, although that is somewhat outside the scope of the debate tonight.
As to the rest of the site, the developer was to build 11 private houses, for which the Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council had given planning permission.

However, under the Community Land Act the GLC gave notice of its intention to buy compulsorily. The developer, who had been ready to build at once and who had, I believe, bought the land partly with borrowed money, could not afford, at current interest rates, to wait. This morning, I heard that he had agreed to sell the land to the GLC; in effect, the GLC had forced him to sell the land to it.
I suggest that the Community Land Act was not basically intended for the purchase of such a small site, and when obviously the builder was poised ready and intending to get on with building. Indeed, he could not have afforded to do otherwise. However, the Community Land Act has served in this instance only to notify the GLC of the existence of the site. After serving notice under the Act, the GLC apparently intends to proceed under other housing powers which it has long possessed.
The GLC says that it intends to build 29 units of housing instead of 11. But they would take far longer to build. The GLC's current land stock is enough for 42,000 houses and flats. That is about eight years' supply at the GLC's current building rate in London. If the GLC is affected by the current financial cuts, which are expected to involve virtually the whole of our economy, it will take it even longer to use up its land bank to build.
The high density which the GLC proposes—including old people's flatlets—of 40 dwellings in 1¾ acres, is totally out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and is strongly opposed not only by the Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council but by the Hampton Residents' Association and a large number of individual constituents who have written either to myself or to Mr. George Tremlett, who is the Greater London councillor for the constituency and who has taken up this matter with vigour at County Hall.
I am the first to acknowledge that for many years there has been a shortage of housing in inner London that has amounted to a major social evil. I fully realise that the Under-Secretary, who represents an inner London constituency, will be as conscious of this as anyone, as Member


for his constituency, quite apart from his ministerial duties. Indeed, my own political nursery was an inner London constituency at Peckham, which also suffered very severely from the housing shortage, so I know all about it and sympathise deeply with it.
I suggest, on the basis both of the so-called secret report of the London Housing situation published in the Sunday Times this summer, which was said to have circulated within the Department of the Environment, and of the demographic changes, the movement in population, the decline in the birth rate, and so forth, that the shortage can be expected to ease before many years elapse, if it has not begun to do so already.
It is the future for which we are building, because if we build in the late 1970s or 1980s we are building houses or flats which will last 100 years.
The Richmond-upon-Thames borough has played some part in providing housing for people from London. Its record is a good one. From 1966 to 1972, despite its own long waiting list in Richmond-upon-Thames, it offered 10 per cent. of all its vacancies to the Greater London Council. Since 1972 it has agreed to offer 550 houses over six years, which is equivalent to 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of its vacancies and which, if emulated throughout Greater London, would be equivalent to nearly 2,000 lettings a year for the GLC, which, over a decade or so, could make a major dent in the London housing shortage.
However, the Greater London Council has not taken up these vacancies in full. For example, in the current year it has taken up only 50 out of 106 vacancies that have been offered to it by Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council. That is an uptake of less than 50 per cent. I want to know exactly why. If the Greater London Council does not take council tenancies that are offered to it by the outer London borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, it greatly weakens the GLC's case for its rape of Broadmead.
Nearby, on the derelict Hampton nursery lands, the Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council has a scheme for 1,450 houses. Of these, 370 would be council houses for rent, 240 would be housing association housing for rent, 120 would be council houses for sale, and 720

would be private dwellings. The inquiry into this scheme is due to begin in November. I hope that the Secretary of State will decide following the inquiry without too much delay.
I should like to put four points to the Minister. First, I understand that the Greater London Council will decide on its own planning application for Broad-mead but will have to consult the Richmond Borough Council. If, when the GLC consults Richmond with its planning application, it should become difficult or impossible for the two authorities to agree, would the Secretary of State be willing to call in the application for decision by himself, taking local opinion into account, which the GLC does not seem inclined to do?
Secondly, could more information about the preservation of over 200 Broad-mead trees on which the borough has placed tree preservation orders be given, beyond the rather brief information which the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) sent to me when he was Minister?
Thirdly, will the Minister ask the Greater London Council why it has failed to take up in full lettings of good quality houses which have been offered by the Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council? I suspect that the reason has somethings to do with people in inner London not necessarily wishing to move that far out to the periphery of Greater London. In any case, this interacts with the question whether the GLC begins to have a deserving case to seize Broadmead and put upon it a high density development.
Fourthly, will the Minister ascertain what sum of money the GLC intends to pay for the purchase of Broadmead at the ratepayer's expense? I do not see how land can be valued before the density of housing upon the site is known for certain. I should be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough either to comment on these points now or to put his views to me in writing very soon.

10.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for raising this matter, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify some of the issues associated with the case. First, however, I should say how greatly I appreciate the concern that


the hon. Member has shown on behalf of his constituents, both in what he said in his speech this evening and in his earlier letters to my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Planning and Local Government.
At the outset I should say—I think that the hon. Gentleman probably realises it already—that this debate places me in something of a difficulty. It would probably be unwise for me at this stage to attempt to assess or express any views on the merits of this case. I recognise that the hon. Member has given me news, which he kindly communicated to me earlier this evening, that it is possible that the sale of this land by the company in question to the GLC may take place voluntarily. But that has not happened yet. and it is still possible that the case could come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision on a compulsory purchase order. Since many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in the debate could be material issues in the consideration of a compulsory purchase order, it would clearly be unwise for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the case that he so eloquently put.
I should make clear also that the matter raised is essentially one for the Greater London Council rather than for the Department of the Environment. For instance, towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech he asked me what sum the GLC expected to pay. Clearly, I cannot answer that question for the Department of the Environment, and it might be unwise for me to try to do so. I imagine that there would be negotiation between the company and the GLC if there were a voluntary sale, and therefore it is not at this stage something that I, or anyone else, I think, could predict.

Mr. Jessel: Would the hon. Gentleman's Department have the right to intervene in this aspect of the matter, taking into account the need to protect ratepayers against any extravagance by the GLC?

Mr. Barnett: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the price, I should need to write to him about that to be absolutely sure of the position. In fact, the matter does not concern me personally but would be the responsibility of my right hon.

Friend who is concerned with housing matters. I should not like to attempt to give an answer off the cuff. Perhaps the best course would be for me to write to the hon. Gentleman, having sought my right hon. Friend's advice, or ask my right hon. Friend to write directly to the hon. Gentleman with any advice that he may be able to give.
Although the GLC has issued a notice of intention to acquire Broadmead, the council has not, as the hon. Gentleman knows, informed the Department that it has resolved to make a compulsory purchase order anyway, and, so I gather from what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is conceivable that no CPO will be made. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given I think that it would not be wise for me to get too involved in the merits or otherwise of the case. However, I wish to review the background of the case and try to clarify one or two issues.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, the story starts with the purchase in March 1976 of the two properties in Hampton by a private developer who wished to retain the two existing houses and use the rest of the land for residential development. This was followed by the submission of a planning application for the site by the developer, Nightingale Developments Limited, on 1st May this year.
As the hon. Member explained, under the arrangements applicable to the Community Land Act, the authorities concerned, Richmond Borough Council and the Greater London Council, had to decide whether the proposed development was relevant development—that is, significant development falling within the main scope of the Community Land Scheme—and, if it was relevant development, whether they wished to seek to acquire the land if planning permission was granted. Both councils decided that the application was for relevant development. However, while Richmond issued a notice of intention not to acquire the site provided the development was started within one year of the grant of planning permission, the GLC issued a notice of intention to acquire.
This meant that when Richmond granted outline planning permission for the development, which it has now done, that permission was suspended for a


period of 12 months, to give the GLC time to seek to acquire the land, either by agreement or by making a compulsory purchase order. Within this time, it is open to the GLC to consider whether it wishes to proceed to take steps towards acquisition of the land or, notwithstanding having served a notice, to decide not to acquire the land. If it were to decide to make a compulsory purchase order there would of course be opportunities to object to the order, and the matter would probably come to the Secretary of State for decision. If it were to decide not to acquire the land, it would have a duty to notify its change of intention and the planning permission granted would cease to be suspended.
It has been suggested, I believe at one stage by the hon. Gentleman, that the Secretary of State should use his power of direction under Schedule 6 of the Community Land Act. I should like to deal with that point, because it is something over which there may have been confusion in the past. Apart from the view expressed on all sides in Committee during the passage of that Act—and I took part in the Committee stage—that the power should not be used in particular cases, I am bound to say that even if the Secretary of State were to use that power it could not affect the notice of intention to acquire which the GLC issued in June. The reason is that this power cannot be used retrospectively.
The matter is entirely one for the GLC, and I understand that its proposals are to acquire the land for its own housing purposes. I should point out that the GLC could have sought to acquire this site for its own housing long before the Community Land Scheme, which is essentially concerned with land for private development, had come into being.
What the Community Land Act has done is to bring the acquisition issues out at an earlier stage because of the procedures for suspending planning permission. Thus, as indicated in paragraph 33 of Community Land Circular 6, the assurances that have been given, particularly to builders and developers, do not constrain the powers that local authorities have long possessed to acquire land for their own or other public purposes—a fact that is perhaps not as widely appreciated as it might be.
I am glad to take this opportunity to state that the assurances that we have given, particularly to builders and developers, remain valid within the scope of the Community Land Scheme. For instance, where developers or builders bring forward land for early or timely development, local authorities will in normal circumstances not be expected to intervene.
If the GLC were to resolve to make a compulsory purchase order it would have a choice of powers—Section 15 of the Community Land Act or Part V of the Housing Act 1957. As already stated in Circular 30/76, para 36, my right hon. Friend would have regard to the same factors in either case. In other words, he would consider any order in the light of Government housing policies. It has been made clear in various published statements that in considering the compulsory acquisition of land for public sector housing the Secretary of State requires to be satisfied not only of the authority's general housing need but of its need to acquire the order site, and the timing of its proposed development would be relevant in addition or in preference to other sites already in its ownership.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points on this issue, but I hope he will understand the reason why I cannot comment on those points.
The wide-ranging requirements involved in satisfying the GLC's strategic housing role must also be recognised, but the council's arguments in favour of acquisition would have to be weighed against those of any objectors who may not wish to see the site redeveloped at all, or who may have alternative proposals for its redevelopment.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific issues which I should at least mention in fairness to him. The main one, in regard to the allocation made to the GLC on the Hampton nursery lands, is something that may be material to the case and, therefore, it would not be right for me to say anything about it. The hon. Gentleman raised a specific issue about the possibility of a dispute that might arise in the future between the GLC and the Richmond Borough Council with regard to the shape of development that should take place on this piece of land. Under those circumstances it would be open to the Richmond Council to raise the matter with my right


hon. Friend, and he would have to decide whether to intervene, and whether to attempt to mediate between these councils on this issue.
The question of a tree preservation order has also been raised. I should like to mention that the Richmond Borough Council has made it, and it includes the trees at Broadmead.
If no objections are made and sustained the order will come to the Secretary of State for confirmation and it will be treated strictly on its merits. It might, however, be relevant to point out that a tree preservation order cannot prevent any development for which planning permission has been granted.
It is now up to the GLC to decide what further action it wants to take. I expect

that there will be further local discussion on this question, and I hope that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached for the benefit of the community at large, and the hon. Member's constituents in particular. I think the House will agree, however, that these matters should be left in local hands. If this matter were to come before the Secretary of State in the form of a compulsory purchase order, the House can be assured that he would take all relevant aspects into consideration in reaching a decision. If the hon. Member wishes, I shall be glad to draw the attention of the GLC to this useful and timely debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.